Thoughts after Russia's recognition

[Skybird]

The last Ossetia-threads somewhat derailed into emotional venting, and even straight propaganda and nationalism. If you want to continue with that attitude, go back there - but don't start again here. Of yourse you can disagree with my views, but if you make that known, do it in a neutral way, like I post neutrally as well.

The news of the day is clear, Russia has created facts and installed itself as the major guarantor for stability of the status quo in the Caucasean region again. Several questions arise from this which I want to adress point by point. I just had a long talk with an old colleague from my travelling times, who still works in the foreign correspondent business at times. We exchanged plenty of views and philosophies, this is what brought me to writing this. Much of it is more a structuring of what has been on my mind before.

*****************

[Skybird]

1. Is this the beginning of a new cold war?

No.
The ideological mission to spread the Soviet system and global communism is missing on the Russian side. Also, the Russian economy is strong by it's oil exports and gets wealthy by high oil prices, it is not strong by it's exports of goods and items. The Russians can afford to modernize their armed forces, maybe even to slightly increase them, and they can afford to produce more ICBMs than a US missile shield could protect against, and by that "flood" any such defense system. But they cannot afford to enter a new arms race and produce military goods at the frequency and quantitity they did during the USSR era. Thus, there eventually will be a cheap nuclear arms race, but no conventional one - just a constant modenrizing of Russian forces. However, the diplomatic tone and relations between West and East will change drastically, and as a matter of fact already has. but even with the language of the cold war, the military situation will not qualify to allow such a description if it is used to compare to the historical first cold war.


2. Are the Russians acting illegally?

It has been reported very early on that the six-point peace-plan of the EU that Sarkozy was negotiating were not accepted by the russians before some deletions were made and some phrases chnaged or added. These give them the right to station troops in the bufferzone, and to patrol in areas of Georgia, additonally they refer to an old treaty deriving from the earlier conflict in the 90s that so far they had not made use of, but now do, which again gives them the right to set up patrols and checkpoints. It is stunning with what obvious opportunism this is hidden by western leaders now when they made their hot speeches and powerful demands - they refer to a peaceplan, as they call it, that the russians never accepted and actually have alterred - and that is a known fact that no gets ignored for propaganda reasons.
The russians also refer to the example of the Iraq war having been illegal and a violation of international war (a fact on which a vast majority of lawyers for international law agree), not authorized by the UN council, but indirectly excused by the Americans by going back to years-old resolutions that neither included any specifics that could be brought into conformity with the Iraq war, nor were authored with such an explicit intention at the time they were created. Tit-for-tat, think the Russians.


3. Kosovo and Georgia - also a tit-for-tat?

From a Russian perspective, yes, and they mean it serious, not just opportunistcally as an excuse. And I tend to agree with that. The West argues that the West's recognition of Kosovo's independence is legitimitae because they have consulted the Russians via the UN (which nevertheless did not change the fact that the Russians did not agree), and becasue it has been the UN allowing it. But still the principle of the sovereignity of an independent state - Serbia - and the principle of territorial integrity which now is so often used to attack the Russians over Georgia, both got violated in the same way russia ignores them today in Georgia. I would even say in case of Kosovo the case if worse, becasue in the years after the Kosovo war Albanians from Albania moved in huge - in decisive! - numbers into Kosovo and massively shifted the ethnic balance there - and then made a demand to become independent: a manipulation of ethnic realities on the ground which the West nevertheless was not irritated to accept. The ethnic structure in Abkhasia and Southern Ossetia has not been shifted in this way, and both populations have been victims to Georgian repression and brutal Georgian nationalistic violence. Russia therefore rightfully refers to Kosovo having created a precedence setting a standard that now is claimed by the Russians with even more right, it seems, than the West claimed over Kosovo.


4. Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, and Finland

I see the Baltic states not in danger of being invaded by russian troops with a goal of such an assault of recapturing the Baltic - if NATO doesnot move into the Ukraine.
I see Poland not in that kind of military threat as well.
Is see Finland not in that kind of military threat as well.
I think the Russains have accepted that they have lost these grounds. They have accepted it - but they are detemrined to not lose anymore ground. these nations nevertheless for historical reasons are both a bit paranoid and hate-driven regarding Russia. But much of what has been seen from them during these weeks of crisis bordered sheer irrationality, imo, especially Poland, and i do not mean the Kaczynskis only, whose nationalistic paranoias towards both Russia and Germany is well-documented by now. If Putin will not crush them, then Merkel's army of Lebensborn-offsprings will invade Poland - that is the image they are driven by. Irrational idiots. They have made themselves legitimiate target of mockery and disgust throughout the EU.

This brings us to the Ukraine. I see the conflict about
a.) the Black Sea Fleet and it's bases,
b.) the many Russians living on the Crimean peninsula,
c.) the importance of parts of the Ukraine for energy trafficking, and the fact that
d.) for Russia it is strategically totally unacceptable that NATO gains the ability to field missiles, sensors and striking capacities in the Ukraine, as holding enough conflicting energy that a hot war between Russia and the Ukraine can result from this. It must not be, but it could be. Russia has played the Georgian match straight and undestracted, and this is a sign that they do not accept BS anymore and will not be intimidated by provocations and bluffs. If I were the Ukraine, I would play it more cautiously than this Trottel Saakashvilli did, and would not try any more provocations like demanding the Russian fleet to repoprt to Ukrainean command - not only for Russia but for any Western nation as well this is tiotally unacceptable, even more so if such a decree is signed in times of war. A Ukrainean move towards NATO will not reduce but increase the risk of war. A NATO diplomatic offensive to get the Ukraine involvedd in NATO will not reduce but increase the risk of war. And a too challenging provocation by the Ukraine also will not reduce but increase the risk of war. for the time being, since the ukraine cannot move and relocate like an aircraft carrier, best advise is to let any provocations and any moves to the West rest, and try to consolidate the status quo and preserve it over sufficiently long time that eventually a cautious feeling of stability (avoiding the word "trust" here) on russian side will emerge after longer time. To accept to pay ordinary market prices for gas and oil from Russia, like all nations on the makret must do, also could help. that would be a n expensive move, but it could be wortzh it if it evades war and a lost of the Crimean, as well as as much occupation as is needed to prevent Ukraine moving into NATO. The West must understand that Russia will not accept NATO at the ukrainean-russian border - period. It will bnot happen, no matter the cursing, yelling, gestures, feet-stomping and whatever. Russia cannot afford that. to realise and not challenge vital self-interests of an opponent is part of Realpoltik. Ignroing it did not work in Georgia, and it will not work in the Ukraine as well - you can take that as granted.


5. Would NATO fight over its small allies in the East?

(Ignoring that a war with Russia means war with a nuclear superpower. You better have damn good reasons to start destroying the world.)

Probably not - currently it lacks the capacity. The American military is overstretched on a global scale, the European military is too weak. The US has no interests that are locally limited, and defines the whole globe as the justified sphere of influence for the "American century". this leaves them unable to respond with sufficient force at every place around all the world. A shortening of the front would be much in need, but currently to American thinking that sounds like sheer treachery where in fact wanting it all is sheer megalomania. By wishing to defend all the US has or could have, America will loose more in fact. The consequence must be that the Europeans invest far more money into increasing both quality and quantity of their conventional forces. the EU is overestimating it's diplomatic weight by far, which is especially apparent in case of trying to make the Iranians comply (with zero effect since years), and also in their demands to russia to comply with regard to Western demands for Georgia. Let's face it - currently the Kremlin does not take the Europeans serious anymore. And if we are honest to ourselves, we must agree that they have indeed little reason to worry about the EU. Which brings us to the question of ...

[Skybird]

6. Is Russia or the West more vulnerable?

The West threatens to block Russia's access to the WTO. that is no threat - because as an exporter of energy and basic resources like ore (that the Indians and Chinese would be happy to buy in Europe'S place), not being a great exporter of produced goods and items, WTO membership is, as a Russian paper put it, more "a box to be ticked by routine", but not really important. The West just raised illusions about WTO being important to Russia, by that imagining that they could get more influence over russia once the Russians are in and must stick to the rules. Much the same can be said about membership in the G8 and one or two more organisations and conferences the West has "threatend" to exclude the Russians from. All these are considerations for the Russians, but no real concerns and surely no worries or threats. They calculated them, and judging by the outcome of that calculation and their ultimate action they value them not that high.

Also, Europe is heavily depending on Russian gas and oil. these cannot be replaced all of a sudden, or even in the forseeable future. On the other hand it is not understandable why some Wetserners assuje goods and highteczh the russians do no longer buy in europe can't be bought on the world market by them. again. Here lies no threat for the Russians.

In return, russia is in a strong position, and has nthe potential, as the Prawda put it, to hit the US very strong below the belt. I quote the Prawda here not because I just believe the Prawda (in general it is a very bad and heavily biased, government-friendly piece of journalism), but becasue these points are exactly my own considerations as well.

US experts warn that the list of Moscow’s potential sanctions is a lot longer. Angela Stent, the director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, Georgetown University, said that Moscow may respond at the UN Security Council, where it can put obstacles on the way of US intentions to punish Iran for its nuclear ambition. All anti-terrorist programs, the struggle against drug mafia, Syria, Venezuela and Hamas can be added on the list too. There are many questions, on which Russians may stop their cooperation with the USA, with the cooperation in the energy industry on top of that list, the expert believes.

The International Herald Tribune wrote with reference to US outstanding analysts that Washington needed a lot more from Moscow than vice versa. The US needs to ensure the security of Soviet nuclear weapons, to obtain Russia’s help in the endeavor to make Iran and North Korea shut down their nuclear programs.

The sale of Russia’s arms is another problem. The governments of Western countries and Israel are concerned about reports saying that Russia started the shipments of first components of its S-300 missile system to Iran. The latter may subsequently use the powerful systems to down US and Israeli aircraft.

Russia may complicate USA’s and NATO’s supply of the coalition in Afghanistan In April, Moscow gave France and Germany a right to transit non-combatant cargoes via Russia. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said that the West should not bite the hand that feeds 50,000 servicemen in Afghanistan. Moscow can offer show pressure of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which the USA would like to use for their operations in Afghanistan.

The Prawda used similar words like I did in the past when I said the West needs russia much more than russia needs the West. Narcissistic patriotism and unrealistic self-glorification should better not stop anybody in the West from realisng that this is the simple truth. Well, nobody forced western leaders to make policies over many years that finally lead wetsern nations in such exposed, weak and difficult to defend positions. Looking at it with cool eyes and a calm minds I must conclude that the West now earns the fruits it has sowed itself, unneeded. If some people in past days took that attitude as evidence that I sympathise with the Russians for their own intentions, I cannot help it. If anything I admire the clearness and straightness with which they play there moves currently. Two weeks, and they have achcieved their goals in the Caucasian. the americans wage two wars since many years. On eis lost, the other will end in three years with a totally unsatisfactory excuse of a condition for the sake of getting the troops out. the EU is debating and meeting and tlaking for years and years, and sees itself overtaken by changing reality once and again. Putin and medwedew waited for the right time, and made some few moves in strength and with determination - and everything falls into the right place due to solid preparation, et voila. From a totally neutral point of vision, I cannot escape to be impressed. If being guilty of one thing more than of anything else, than theWets is guilty of having wasted years with raising comfortable illusions, and not preparing at all, instead wasting attention and precious potentials and resources with misleading strategies and surreal projects. Again, if this makes me a target for accusing me to be guilty of being a sympathsier of russian policies, I cannot help it. I am all that not. But I can understand their motivation, and their behavior currently makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what the angrily lecturing West has to offer.


7. NATO's reputation

As I have argued in my old and long separate essay "Trapped in the Afghan maze", NATO'S reputation already has massively suffered from the Afghanistan war, and I would say that parts of it after this crisis now lies in open shatters. the past twenty years of failing reorientation over the alliance's meaning and focus, and the open rift between the US and it's new Easteuropean allies who wished to raise in America's percpetion by orginally uncritically moving under it's policies and supporting them without questions, and the arrogantly labelled "old Europe", now pay off in a negative way. too many cooks in the kitchen who spoil the brew, too many variating voices, often interacting with nation's positons inside the EU, egoism, and different attotudes towards war and low spendings for prepariong to wage war if needed, have led us to the current mess: an alliance unable to react and unable to offer an ything more than just empty phrases, meaningless threats, and lots of hot air. Like the Moscow Times essay that I linked already asked: one has to wonder if NATO really would be willing to start military action over an attack against the Baltic, and if there really is a cost-effect-calculation possible that even would justifiy that, because wars not only are run by ideals and catchphrases, but need to be payed for in solid money and enormous economic investements that in case of war with Russia could seriously cripple European and American economies and bring global economies down to it's knees. seeing it realistically and without any moral sentiments or national sympathies I answer both questions with "no". and this raises questions about the intelligence of provoking the Russians that seriously by moving NATO eastward in violation of promises made by two american adminstrations to president Yeltsin, and also with regard to the wisdom of bringing the ukraine into NATO. Our good-hearted well-meaningness easily could bring our heads onto the block, for the chances for war on the Crimean peninsula are real, and they are not small. Have we really all reason to assume that all NATO nations would be willing to engage in full war against Russia over something as far away as the Ukraine? Don't let your emotions form your answer, think about it with a calm head. You'll see that at least you come to an answer of "I have my doubts".


8. Conclusions

There is a gap between what the West claims, and what it really is capable in carrying out. the limits of these claims we have learned in recent years, in Iraq, in Afghnaistan, and now in the Caucasean region. The status quo is not acchieved by realpolitik, but the absence of it. realism and unbiased perception of both side's vital interests is needed. And on both the west has proven to be running low since the end of the cold war - we were drunk of ourselves, celebrating our "victory", and thinling we cann afford to ignore the apparent loserin this conflict, and that we now can have our ways, unhindered. the Kremlin now leaves us no other choice than to realise that these times have come to an end. and that may even be a healthy lesson for us, before we entangle outselves in even more potentially self-damaging adventures. I see the Caucasean situation even positive after the russian recognition. the situation now is clened, and clearer than it was in the years before. the lines have been set out in fresh and bright colour. russia has established itself as the one great ordering power in it'S backyard, and after chechnya and Ossetia and Abkhazia this will be remembered in the several other troubled former USSR provinces that are threatened by internal unrest. Medwedew has accepted a risk by accepting the independence of the two provinces - he has created a precedence that could be taken as an excuse by other provinces to fight for their independence (again). However, he seems to think that the display of force by russia reduces this risk so far that the gains of accepting Ossetian independence outshine the risks. since i am not blind enough to assume that democracy "made in the West" necessarily is a model that would or could work in all parts of the present world, I tend to cautiously agree with his calculations when seeing it from the Russian's side. Seeing it from the West's side, all considerations currently are meanignless, since we are not in a position to do anything about the new status quo anyway. the americans would be well-advised to let this Georgian Uber-Trottel Saakashvilli fall, and not to try smuggling weapons via their warships in the Black Sea. If they would get caught in doing that, things could become ashaming at best, and really nasty at worst. The russians will not give up control of the harbour in Potin. They would be stupid if they would.

Without europe investing seriously more into defense, and winning in military capacities again that are solid enough in selection and quality to handle the Russians on a grand scale, the EU can forget to be recognised as a diplomatic negotiation partner that needs to be taken serious. the european self-impression of being accepted for being a word-superpower only, is wrong. Since Europe did not do it's homework and won in milizary strength, and since america left it to word-guarantees for Georgia only without making sure it was always able to back them up by deeds, one would, if this were a sports event, necessarily conclude that the Western team not only lost this match, but also would not have earned the win. Mocking the other team before the match started and bullying it's players on several occasions in advance, therefore proved to be a PR boomerang. In that conditon, and with it's back against the wall in Afghanistan as well, NATO does not impress anybody. It needs to readjust it's focus on more realistic goals of much more limited range and scale. "Frontbegradigung" and "Frontverkürzung" it is called in German. In other words: we are far too scattered, around areas of the globe maybe America thinks for self-related reasons it has an interest in - but NATO has not.

More conflicts inside NATO are preprogrammed - with open end. Game, set and match for Russia - but we must not like it.

[August]

Is there a cliff notes version to this wall of text? :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is there a cliff notes version to this wall of text? :D

:rotfl:

Really, it's pretty good if you read all the way through it. Having no real knowledge of Georgia's people, and never even having heard of South Ossetia before the war, I don't have anything to say about it, but it's a nice piece.

[LtCmdrRat]

Real good job, Skybird. Kosovo made this situation to be happened. Also ambitions of Putin, Saakashvili and Abkhazia and South Ossetia Leaders.

********Some facts*************
-Georgian majority(~52% different numbers) was pushed out from Abkhazia by Abkhazian separatists in 90th; -Georgian minority (~20 % different numbers ) were pushed out from South Ossetia by S.-ossetian separatists in the same 90th.
-Allmost all of s.-ossetians and Abkhazians were issued russian passports during last 10 years.
-Technically they are russian citizens.
-Tskhinvali (South Ossetia 's capital) was attacked by Georgian forces using multiple-launch rocket systems GRAD (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K51_Grad ). Can you imaging using rocket against city; GRAD works by squires.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
-Saakashvili can be a good prime minister( he is a good manager but not a president,and look at this ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Hfh72CGbc

[Skybird]

Real good job, Skybird. Kosovo made this situation to be happened. Also ambitions of Putin, Saakashvili and Abkhazia and South Ossetia Leaders.

********Some facts*************
-Georgian majority(~52% different numbers) was pushed out from Abkhazia by Abkhazian separatists in 90th; -Georgian minority (~20 % different numbers ) were pushed out from South Ossetia by S.-ossetian separatists in the same 90th.
-Allmost all of s.-ossetians and Abkhazians were issued russian passports during last 10 years.
-Technically they are russian citizens.
-Tskhinvali (South Ossetia 's capital) was attacked by Georgian forces using multiple-launch rocket systems GRAD (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K51_Grad ). Can you imaging using rocket against city; GRAD works by squires.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
-Saakashvili can be a good prime minister( he is a good manager but not a president,and look at this ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Hfh72CGbc
Everybody in the region did what he can to win the jackpot. and all of them played foul on many occasions. there are no innocent victims in this conflict. Even the West participated, and cheated, like all others. For the future I hope we stay out of there and focus on becoming independent from oil. The West is in two serious, unacceptable dependencies regarding oil: the Muslim states and OPEC, and Russia. correcting these dangerous conditions must be our priority. Without this happening, our hands will remain to be tied behind our backs. consider it to be the homework we need to do. the other homework is to strengthen our regional (=in Europe) military position by increasing our forces in number and quality. Shipping our troops around the globe and let them fight in highly questionable regional wars outside of NATO's keyarea of interest cannot be such a priority, and is wasting resources, and chances for public support for the military (in Germany for example). The German budget for example is a scandal, considering the claims for global importance by Berlin.

Regarding Georgia and even more: the Ukraine, there possibly will be strong promises and invitations and a roadmap for NATO membership indeed - but without a definite timetable. Germans who listened may have noted that not only did Merkel avoid to talk about timetables during her press conferences and meetings in the Baltic, but in her appearance on German TV on Sunday evening evaded repeatedly the interviewers direct questions for binding timetables. Seen that way, the German position has not changed much, and tries to square the circle by what this coalition government in so very good at: doing nothing and labelling that as decisive action. and like germany, also France and even the US have indicated that the communication with Russia should not be interrupted. I think many western leaders know damn well the difference between the talking they give to the mikes and cameras, and the real substantial interests of their nations. Just some, like the Kaczynskis, may do not - and may find themselves ignored sooner or later.

Also, technically the famous NATO paragraph 5 for mutual assistance in case of one member being attacked does not explicitly oblige all members to go to war in support of the attacked member (it allows military action, but does not automatically declare it mandatory for all) - it speaks of assistance only on whose quality every member individually decides, and says that all other members must offer assistance to "restore" the attacked member's former security status. In diplomacy and amongst lawyers, that leaves a wide open prairie of free space for interpretations. There is much freedom to eventually leave such assistance to moral support, wellmeant condolence, tough rethorics, aid deliveries or diplomatic "pressure" on the aggressor. The inclusion of military force is left to the individual assessement of nations - something that is somewhat hidden in the text and not obvious to most people.


Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm), will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. (...)

Die Parteien vereinbaren, daß ein bewaffneter Angriff gegen eine oder mehrere von ihnen in Europa oder Nordamerika als ein Angriff gegen sie alle angesehen werden wird; sie vereinbaren daher, daß im Falle eines solchen bewaffneten Angriffs jede von ihnen in Ausübung des in Artikel 51 der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen anerkannten Rechts der individuellen oder kollektiven Selbstverteidigung der Partei oder den Parteien, die angegriffen werden, Beistand leistet, indem jede von ihnen unverzüglich für sich und im Zusammenwirken mit den anderen Parteien die Maßnahmen, einschließlich der Anwendung von Waffengewalt, trifft, die sie für erforderlich erachtet, um die Sicherheit des nordatlantischen Gebiets wiederherzustellen und zu erhalten. (...)


The question what worth NATO guarantees do have is already being asked in both Georgia and the Ukraine anyway, and I tend to give a careful answer at best. And Poland took the consequence and in latest diplomacy bypassed NATO completely and directly approached America. If that is promising, after the American "reaction" shown to Georgia, is something different.

[Bruno Lotse]

New borders of Georgia
http://s59.radikal.ru/i165/0808/6a/8f05c2897381.jpg

Prez Saak's dream Georgia for Georgians is coming true :rotfl:
Russia acknowledged - that what really matters.
Hamas acknowledged - sure, Georgian Minister of Defense is Israeli citizen :rotfl:
Year, and the guys from self-mechanizing Vostok battalion happened to be Muslims as well.

[Happy Times]

Russia cannot afford to be a bad neighbour

The Kremlin hawks may be in the ascendancy now, but in a world of global trade they will pay a price in the end

I feel sure that a debate is going on between the hawks and doves in the Kremlin. I am confident of that because such debates always do exist. There must be equally patriotic Russians, in senior official positions, who see the Georgian campaign as part of Vladimir Putin's restoration of Russian self-respect or as dangerous adventurism. In times of crisis, decision-makers inevitably divide into hawks, regarded by critics as “reckless warmongers”, and doves, regarded as “cowardly appeasers”.

Such divisions exist in the EU and in the US. In Russia, there is no doubt that the hawks are in the ascendant. The leading hawk is Mr Putin, the Prime Minister. One should remember that all politics is ultimately domestic. Mr Putin wants to impress Russia's neighbours with its power and armed might. But he also wants to impress the electorate.

The hawkish leaders refuse to accept Russia's humiliation at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. Their policy is popular with Russian public opinion. This naturally strikes fear into former Soviet countries, such as Ukraine or Georgia. No one now will lightly challenge Russian power; the Russian people like that.

We do not know who the doves in the Kremlin may be, although President Medvedev uses more moderate language than Mr Putin.

So far, the hawks have been winning the argument. The Russian people feel that they have been treated with disrespect for too long. Their military action in Georgia has been a rapid and decisive victory. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, never popular in Russia, has been taught a sharp lesson in the realities of military power.

Nevertheless, the doves in the Kremlin also have strong arguments. Russia is a major nuclear power, comparable with the US. Russia may be the only nuclear power with the capacity to obliterate the US. Yet this would lead to the total destruction of Russia itself. That does, however, mean that Russia understands the reality of the situation.

The Russians have a sophisticated knowledge of their own vulnerability to nuclear attack. Like the Americans, they know that they cannot afford to go to war with the other nuclear superpower. This was established over 40 years of the Cold War. A certain level of nuclear capacity actually limits a major power's freedom of action.

In the time of Russia's greatest strength in the mid-20th century, between victory in Europe in 1945 and the death of Stalin in 1953, Russia still had a powerful Marxist-Leninist ideology that attracted support around the world and even conquered China.

Stalin believed Marxism-Leninism to be a scientific explanation of history that was bound to prevail against “capitalist imperialism”. He devoted substantial resources to promoting international revolution. Even his more moderate successor, Nikita Khrushchev, warned the West that “we will bury you”.

Russia is no longer a Marxist-Leninist society, although there is some popular nostalgia for the old days. Socialist idealists of the Third World no longer look to Russia as a model society, or even an attractive one. Marxism-Leninism had a strong appeal to political militants. That no longer exists. For better or worse, Russia is now just another capitalist country, and not a particularly efficient one.

The price that Russia is paying for the invasion of Georgia is increased isolation. The major regional powers of the modern world are the US, China, the EU, Russia, India and Japan. Since the Georgian invasion, Russia has had strained relations with the US and Europe, and no major friends. Russia is a large Asian power, stretching to the Pacific Ocean, but the three most important Asian powers, China, India and Japan, do not have close or trusting relations with it.

Of the six world powers, or groups of powers, Russia is seen as the least reliable, the least friendly. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that the US in the 1930s had become alienated from the South American countries; to correct that, he established the “good neighbour policy”. Russia is increasingly isolated from its “near abroad”. To Georgians, Ukrainians or citizens of the Baltic states, Mr Putin's Russia appears to be following a “bad neighbour policy”. For the Russian voter, Putinism may appear to be reasserting Russia's position in the world; to its neighbours, Russia is now an ugly threat.

The West, particularly the US and Europe, has tried to prevent Russia's isolation by inviting the Russians to come into the tent. This policy was not consistently pursued; there are still Western anxieties from the Cold War, just as there are similar Russian anxieties. But the general policy was clear and was symbolised by inviting Russia to join G8 meetings.

Russia has essential interests in common with the West. Global trade, a stable European market for oil and gas, resistance to Islamic terrorism, avoidance of military conflict, investment in modernisation. It was hoped that Russia and the West could build on these interests to cement good relations and strengthen the global economy.

The first European reactions to the invasion of Georgia showed that Europe hoped to protect this co-operative policy. Had Russia limited the Georgian operation to the protection of South Ossetian refugees, but kept troops out of Georgia proper, a co-operative policy might have been maintained. Instead, there has been broad Russian aggression against Georgian territory.

The delay in the ceasefire and the extension of the invasion far beyond the boundary of South Ossetia has created a very different climate, made worse by threats to target nuclear weapons against Poland and, it appears, Ukraine as well.

In a world of global trade, Russia cannot afford to be isolated. No doubt the Kremlin hawks are riding high now. Yet as Sir Robert Walpole said of a mid 18th-century war: “They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article4552510.ece

[Sea Demon]

Are the Russians acting illegally?

The russians also refer to the example of the Iraq war having been illegal and a violation of international war (a fact on which a vast majority of lawyers for international law agree), not authorized by the UN council, but indirectly excused by the Americans by going back to years-old resolutions that neither included any specifics that could be brought into conformity with the Iraq war, nor were authored with such an explicit intention at the time they were created. Tit-for-tat, think the Russians.



HAHAHA. Skybird...don't be such a blatant idiot. Especially on this point. How many months....actually years did we (the USA) spend at that worthless organization called the UN for both our major actions. And we had UN paper (which I think we can now all agree was worthless at this point) backing our actions in both cases. What did Russia have? When did Russia appeal to the UN at all? If they were truly following our lead or example on this, maybe they would have gone to the UN and spent countless months justifying their imminent actions. They didn't. Nor did they have a "coalition of the willing". The Russians took absolute "Unilateral" military actions, and the typical useless whiners are dead silent. :lol: Doesn't surprise me at all. I knew they were worthless people from the start. And it furthers the notion that the UN is worthless. It is a waste of time for us. I hope the US leadership proceeds forward with this in mind.

Seriously, I'm waiting for these whining little tarts to condemn Russia's "Unilateral" actions, condemn Russia outright for not using the UN as the vehicle to solve international crises, and last but not least....I'm looking forward to the comparisons of Putin and Medvedev to Hitler. Oh, I know we won't get it. But I hope it shows the useless idiot UN whining protesting fools of the USA, Canada, and Europe for what they are. It's clear as a bell to me who these losers are.


On your other many points, it's all nonsense. Russia has done everything they can to back themselves into a corner. They have pushed all the states they wanted in their orbit directly into NATO's sphere of influence, have helped the USA ink the missile defense deal they desperately didn't want, and are simply screwing themselves with nominal trade relations with the West. Something they cannot afford to do, despite your contrarian views. This whole thing will be bad for Russia in the coming months ahead. Russia has only one link of leverage with the West (well Europe anyway). And that's their energy trade. The Russians will not screw up this relationship. They simply cannot afford to. You don't truly see the whole picture. What about other things that Russia relies on the West for as well? Do you think China's gonna clean up their nuclear dumps? What about Western medical suppplies and technology that goes into Russia? What about raw material imports? What of food imports? What about Western commercial contracts with them and the money from those? No, Skybird. The West actually has alot of power here to screw over Russia actually. It's actually the opposite of what you think. I know you're a fatalist and believe everything tragic about the West, but in this case, Russia screwed themselves over big time. Wait a few months and see. Right now, the Russians got a little pride. But I think in the end, it won't be worth it to them.

[Sea Demon]

Just to demonstrate the looney leadership both Putin and Medvedev are both capable of, here's a nice link. Apparently Mr. Medvedev "isn't afraid of a new Cold War". Oooohh. He's tough. :roll: Not. If he was actually a man with common sense and intelligence, he would be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26403580/

[Happy Times]

I agree in that EU has to work to cut its energy dependency and create a conventional military capability. EU has known this long before this crisis, this should be the point, after these will be pursued with determination.

Im a big supporter of nuclear energy, this has been the Finnish solution with the first EPR reactor under construction and two more planned. Europes energy market also needs some unbundling as the Comission has suggested. The monopolies and lack of co-ordination hamper competiton and efficiency.

The increase in defence isnt a problem for EU if it so wishes, it can easily use some 400 billion on defence. Even creating global reach and projection of power. Something Russia cant match without it having effect on their economy.
EU is like US prior ww2, a sleeping giant waiting for a Pearl Harbor.

[AntEater]

If politicians on both sides carry on like this, we will have war within 10 years.

Then Happy Times can be a hero and the forces of good will triumph
Hurrah
:damn:

[Happy Times]

If politicians on both sides carry on like this, we will have war within 10 years.

Then Happy Times can be a hero and the forces of good will triumph
Hurrah
:damn:

Yeah, lets unilaterally disarm and sell everything to Gazprom.:up:
Europes role in the future isnt going to be Russias bitch in energy or security, no matter if some would be willing for that.

[Sea Demon]

The increase in defence isnt a problem for EU if it so wishes, it can easily use some 400 billion on defence. Even creating global reach and projection of power. Something Russia cant match without it having effect on their economy.
EU is like US prior ww2, a sleeping giant waiting for a Pearl Harbor.

I agree with you. If the USA and Europe were sufficiently threatened to the point of both ratcheting up their mutual defenses, Russia would be left behind very rapidly. They will not have learned their lessons from the Cold War. The problem is, for the Europeans, I'm afraid it will take more than a Pearl Harbor event on their soil to wake them up to any realities of hostilities. I hope that's not the case, but I believe it to be.

As far as energy, we all have many options to power our nations. You're right. Unfortunately, we have stupid/shortsighted people in NGO's who think their "well-meaning" acts of "environmental protections" which actually accomplish little, trump national security/national energy policy. We need real energy solutions combined with real balance. If push comes to shove, that's exactly what will happen. You can guarantee it. This is something I know the Russians know as well. At any rate, the Russians can't afford to truly screw you Euro's up with energy. They need your money and other stuff from both Europe and the USA as well.

[Skybird]

The Times Online essay is another example of how to go on ignoring reality. Let's pick it apart piece by piece.

I think that is a very unrealistic and dreaming comment. The author is not focussing on facts, but vague assumptions about what is good and what is evil, and depends on wishful thinking that bases on western perceptions of the situation, ignoring Russian perceptions completely. The same Western mistake that has brought us into our current position of helplessness – the author presents it right here again.

I see a pattern here. when EU citizens do not vote over their interests in the institution the way they are supposed to do, we tell them what their interests should be and deny them any votes, meaning it just well with them. When Islamic leaders tell us into the face what islam is and that they are meaning to overcom eus and that this is islam's mission, we reject this act and tell them why we must not beolieve their words by telling them that we have a superior understanding of Islam and then tell them what Islam REALLY is, and that is a intellectual fantasy of ourselves that we designed to have an islam that is available to our means and tools to change it in to something that could be adapted to the west. And if the russians show us that interests we assumed to be theirs are not really that important to them, we do not believe it and tell them what their interests REALLY are, or should be acording to our shizophrenic logic. It is ridiculous. It is called "rejection of reality". The EU sells it under the label of "European solidarity" - all members shall share the same illusions.


I feel sure that a debate is going on between the hawks and doves in the Kremlin. I am confident of that because such debates always do exist. There must be equally patriotic Russians, in senior official positions, who see the Georgian campaign as part of Vladimir Putin's restoration of Russian self-respect or as dangerous adventurism. In times of crisis, decision-makers inevitably divide into hawks, regarded by critics as “reckless warmongers”, and doves, regarded as “cowardly appeasers”.

Such divisions exist in the EU and in the US. In Russia, there is no doubt that the hawks are in the ascendant. The leading hawk is Mr Putin, the Prime Minister.

Maybe there are doves. The author makes a statistical argument here, and just guesses, naming not one. But assuming there are doves – and not forget that the government in Russia is very centralised with both Medwedew and Putin having the power to handselect key positions in the government’s apparatus -, who says they are in a position to influence the governmental course in any way? Take the duma, for example. Medwedew behind the curtain handed in a demand to get a proposal sealed by them that asks him to recognise both provinces. The upper house did him that favour – to zero. The lower house did him that favour – again to zero. Doves, anyone? All Russian ambassadors who spoke out in recent weeks anywhere, spoke harsh language. Where are the doves? But the author says “they must be there”. Later he writes “we do not know who the doves in the Kremlin may be”. But the must be there – because the author wants them to be there, to have a hope as a basis for addressing the Russians in the usual ways and hoping to do so without needing to question the western course so far a single bit.


One should remember that all politics is ultimately domestic. Mr Putin wants to impress Russia's neighbours with its power and armed might. But he also wants to impress the electorate.

This is correct.


The hawkish leaders refuse to accept Russia's humiliation at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. Their policy is popular with Russian public opinion. This naturally strikes fear into former Soviet countries, such as Ukraine or Georgia. No one now will lightly challenge Russian power; the Russian people like that.

We do not know who the doves in the Kremlin may be, although President Medvedev uses more moderate language than Mr Putin.

So far, the hawks have been winning the argument. The Russian people feel that they have been treated with disrespect for too long. Their military action in Georgia has been a rapid and decisive victory. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, never popular in Russia, has been taught a sharp lesson in the realities of military power.

There he goes again: the doves do this, the doves must be that.

Nevertheless, the doves in the Kremlin also have strong arguments. Russia is a major nuclear power, comparable with the US. Russia may be the only nuclear power with the capacity to obliterate the US. Yet this would lead to the total destruction of Russia itself. That does, however, mean that Russia understands the reality of the situation.

But I wonder if the author understands it. Here and in the following he speaks about the balance of terror coming from nuclear deterrence, and argues that in principle it should have kept them away from the Georgian operation. He does not see that the same deterrence keeps the West away from risking a major war with Russia – not when the Russian interests in a conflicting situation are incredibly much greater than Western ones.


The Russians have a sophisticated knowledge of their own vulnerability to nuclear attack. Like the Americans, they know that they cannot afford to go to war with the other nuclear superpower. This was established over 40 years of the Cold War. A certain level of nuclear capacity actually limits a major power's freedom of action.

Oh, does it? When the other is nuclear armed, you see such limitations – because he can bite back. But if he is not while you are, these limitations actually are smaller – because he has no deterrence to his avail.


In the time of Russia's greatest strength in the mid-20th century, between victory in Europe in 1945 and the death of Stalin in 1953, Russia still had a powerful Marxist-Leninist ideology that attracted support around the world and even conquered China.

Stalin believed Marxism-Leninism to be a scientific explanation of history that was bound to prevail against “capitalist imperialism”. He devoted substantial resources to promoting international revolution. Even his more moderate successor, Nikita Khrushchev, warned the West that “we will bury you”.

Russia is no longer a Marxist-Leninist society, although there is some popular nostalgia for the old days. Socialist idealists of the Third World no longer look to Russia as a model society, or even an attractive one. Marxism-Leninism had a strong appeal to political militants. That no longer exists. For better or worse, Russia is now just another capitalist country, and not a particularly efficient one.

The price that Russia is paying for the invasion of Georgia is increased isolation. The major regional powers of the modern world are the US, China, the EU, Russia, India and Japan. Since the Georgian invasion, Russia has had strained relations with the US and Europe, and no major friends. Russia is a large Asian power, stretching to the Pacific Ocean, but the three most important Asian powers, China, India and Japan, do not have close or trusting relations with it.

One is wondering why the author sees this as so decisive. Does he really assume the Russians are not aware of that? Gorbatchev some days ago asked in an editorial for the NYT why Russia is expected to see value in relations with the West if the West constantly has broken promises, and all that Russia gets from these consultations is being presented with facts at it’s cost that it should swallow, and never gets something back.


In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: IF OUR OPINION COUNTS FOR NOTHING IN THOSE INSTITUTIONS, DO WE REALLY NEED THEM? JUST TO SIT AT THE NICELY SET DINNER TABLE AND LISTEN TO LECTURES?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defences in neighbouring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Gorbatchev&st=cse&oref=slogin

[Skybird]

Of the six world powers, or groups of powers, Russia is seen as the least reliable, the least friendly. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that the US in the 1930s had become alienated from the South American countries; to correct that, he established the “good neighbour policy”. Russia is increasingly isolated from its “near abroad”. To Georgians, Ukrainians or citizens of the Baltic states, Mr Putin's Russia appears to be following a “bad neighbour policy”. For the Russian voter, Putinism may appear to be reasserting Russia's position in the world; to its neighbours, Russia is now an ugly threat.

The West, particularly the US and Europe, has tried to prevent Russia's isolation by inviting the Russians to come into the tent. This policy was not consistently pursued; there are still Western anxieties from the Cold War, just as there are similar Russian anxieties. But the general policy was clear and was symbolised by inviting Russia to join G8 meetings.

See above. The author simply does not get it that the generous offers were nothing else than a constant presentation of created facts to the Russi9ans, and accepting them to play by Western rules, interests and standards. Nothing needs to be added to what Gorbatchev said.


Russia has essential interests in common with the West. Global trade, a stable European market for oil and gas, resistance to Islamic terrorism, avoidance of military conflict, investment in modernisation. It was hoped that Russia and the West could build on these interests to cement good relations and strengthen the global economy.

The price seems to have become too great for them. They do not wish to become just an appendix to the West. Russia is neither Asia, nor Europe. Russia is Russia, an entity in itself.


The first European reactions to the invasion of Georgia showed that Europe hoped to protect this co-operative policy.
Now, it hoped to protect its own demands for Georgia becoming it’s own, especially the Americans, without being in a position to object to Russian deeds. That’s why everybody demanded the Russians have to play by western rules again. The six-point-peace-plan they accepted with changes only, and everybody knew that. Today nobody wants to hear about that anymore, and demands them to follow a peace-plan that they never have signed.


Had Russia limited the Georgian operation to the protection of South Ossetian refugees, but kept troops out of Georgia proper, a co-operative policy might have been maintained. Instead, there has been broad Russian aggression against Georgian territory.

Yes, Europeans are vulnerable to such naïve and short-sighted concepts of war, see Afghanistan. For Europeans there are no wars, but peace-making operations, and they shall run smooth and easy, with no sweat and even lesser blood, gentleman like a sporting competition and always ready to forgive the enemy and to believe in his claims. The Russian launched into war, and then made sure that they won it beyond doubt, and made sure that the enemy in this war is stripped of its armament . the spoke the language of war, and they spoke it well, coming out as the strong one being in unconditional control of the situation and the enemy. And I must say this is the only way of warfare that makes sense. If you are not willing to do war like this and be as uncompromised like this, don’t launch wars. Only the EU can think that war is an issue open to bureaucratic administration and ministerial regulation. Fools!


The delay in the ceasefire and the extension of the invasion far beyond the boundary of South Ossetia has created a very different climate, made worse by threats to target nuclear weapons against Poland and, it appears, Ukraine as well.

The Russians play clever tricks now, like the US did on behalf of desiring to launch the Iraq war, or the many verbal platitudes made when giving the Russians another fact at their cost to swallow and shut up about.


In a world of global trade, Russia cannot afford to be isolated. No doubt the Kremlin hawks are riding high now. Yet as Sir Robert Walpole said of a mid 18th-century war: “They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.”

And here just another time some upright Westerner ignores the simple fact that the Russian energy is needed more by us non-Russians, than Russia needs us. I have written about this foolish self-deception of the West in my main essay. Basically it is a manual for the West to remain weak and without influence over Russia. Does really anybody think that the Kremlin has not considered all these points?

This author does not give me an impression of being a brilliant intellect or a man accepting realities. I more think of him in terms of wishful thinking, and self-deception.

Only two things could really weaken Russia to a degree that they must play ball: either the world needs much lesser energy so that we do not need to buy their gas anymore, or their gas reserves must run out – and this will still take some time, say 20 years or so. In the meantime they will play the cards they got, and we will need to realise that the rules of the game have changed – it no longer is a marching-through of western intentions against the interests of Russia.

I am angry with this fool not because he does not share my opinion only, but because his views are a totally unaltered set of views that have brought the west into the position of self-imposed weakness that we currently have to endure, and if he would have his will, no reassessment would ever take place, it would be left to complaining about the Russians playing rough – and at the next conflict (question of time only) We again would get our a$$es kicked. We need to rethink our own focus and priorities and understand that we wanted more than we can achieve and protect. We need to focus on what really is our key-interests instead of lecturing all the world about our wonderful ideals (that we nonetheless easily sell out if the price is right – our almost complete global economical relations work that way), and we must massively increase our ability to protect these, even with force.

Weakness, and military weakness, is no virtue, but never is something else than just – weakness. A decrease in number of options, not an increase in number of options. A lack of things that could be done, not an increase of things that could be done. In itself: disgusting and sad and a pity, not a glorious thing, a wonderful achievement, a high value. Weak is weak, nothing else. It is better to have strength and not needing to use it, than to need strength – and not having it.

[AntEater]

Yeah, lets unilaterally disarm and sell everything to Gazprom.:up:
Europes role in the future isnt going to be Russias bitch in energy or security, no matter if some would be willing for that.

Well, maybe I can go back to east Prussia then, quit law and grow cabbage on my ancestor's fields

:rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

Here's some lyrics from Dire Straits Industrial disease which I think is appropriate.

"I go down to speakers corner Im thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say theyre jesus one of them must be wrong
Theres a protest singer singing a protest song - he says
they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees
They wanna have a war to keep their factories
They wanna have a war to stop us buying japanese
They wanna have a war to stop industrial disease
Theyre pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind
They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind
They give you rule brittania, gassy beer, page three
Two weeks in espana and sunday striptease
Meanwhile the first jesus says Id cure it soon
Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons
The other ones on a hunger strike hes dying by degrees
How come jesus gets industrial disease"

[Happy Times]

EU is at crossroads, either call it a day or go trough with the common security and defence policy. Every member has to analyze were it sees itself in the future. I dont think its possible anymore to protect our interests by only relying on overstreched US or with spheres of interest with resurgent Russia. The economic interests alone are so big that the pressure for hard power is in motion as we speak.
But this is something that should be explained to all Europeans, instead of trying to smuggle it trough inside the Lisbon treaty. Lets see what the Brussels meeting brings, hopefully a wake up.

[Bruno Lotse]

Russia has successfully completed operation 'Making Peace in Georgia'.
Now the General Staff is preparing operation 'Making Friendship in Ukraine'.

[August]

Yeah, lets unilaterally disarm and sell everything to Gazprom.:up:
Europes role in the future isnt going to be Russias bitch in energy or security, no matter if some would be willing for that.
Well, maybe I can go back to east Prussia then, quit law and grow cabbage on my ancestor's fields

:rotfl:

Until the cossacks come and wipe you out.

[Sea Demon]

And here just another time some upright Westerner ignores the simple fact that the Russian energy is needed more by us non-Russians, than Russia needs us. I have written about this foolish self-deception of the West in my main essay. Basically it is a manual for the West to remain weak and without influence over Russia. Does really anybody think that the Kremlin has not considered all these points?

This author does not give me an impression of being a brilliant intellect or a man accepting realities. I more think of him in terms of wishful thinking, and self-deception.



Nonsense Skybird. There is actually quite a bit of things flowing into Russia from the West (especially money) that they can't afford to let go by the wayside. As I said before do you think China's going to clean up their nuclear dumps? What about the raw materials trade? What about their food imports? What about medical tech and materials that fly into Russia? What about the many other commercial grade tech that Russia has been using lately to come up to world standards? What about all those lucrative commercial contracts from the West? You sound like a drunken Putin stumbling through the halls of the Kremlin trying desperately to justify his stupid actions. Or you sound like Medvedev. This buffoon said recently that he's "not afraid of a new Cold War". How idiotic is that? Russia simply can't afford that in any terms.

You see this whole thing from only one point of view and fail to see the true realities of it. You're like writing fiction here....just like Chalmers Johnson. If Russia were to isolate themselves and their energy, what kind of influence would they have with the West in any way? The answer is absolutely zilch. While their influence has shot down dramatically the last couple of weeks, they stand to gain nothing here and are stupidly aligning themselves against more than 26 nations......most of whom are fully economically developed, have most of the highest regarded R & D bases, and where most of the commercial grade technologies come from. Russia knows what they stand to lose. They stand to lose everything in short order. China and India can't save their necks. Nor do I believe either want anything to do in this situation. I actually think China is enjoying watching Russia push itself into a winless corner. It'll mean more for them as well in the long term. Rather than Putin's stupid paranoia over NATO, Putin should be looking East. If he were actually smart, he would recognize where the real threat to Russia lies. Putin is simply a fool leading his Country back into the isolation that destroyed them during the last Century. There is no quibbling that you can provide to show the alternative. There simply is very little we need in total from Russia, and all those things are things we can provide ourselves when it comes down to it.

[Skybird]

Fine, SD, good to see you asking questions that already were answered. That way I must not adress them again.

For all others, this is a well-done roadmap to conflict, a chronicle of the steps that led to war since beginning of this year. there may be some things that some people may not have taken note of:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-574812,00.html

[Sea Demon]

Fine, SD, good to see you asking questions that already were answered. That way I must not adress them again.

For all others, this is a well-done roadmap to conflict, a chronicle of the steps that led to war since beginning of this year. there may be some things that some people may not have taken note of:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-574812,00.html

I think your (and spiegel's) answers are fallacious propaganda with no bearing on the true realities Sky. That's the problem. These things were not properly addressed in any way whatsoever. You have made claims that without Russia's energy, Europe is doomed. That's just plain dumb. As if Europe doesn't provide anything needed by Russia. And the USA as well. Your view on this is total bunk. You've said China and India will save Russia, but India is also moving closer to the West, and China is keeping quiet on all fronts. China would absolutely love to see a misaligned Russia against NATO. As it weakens Russia considerably. You've also claimed US action in Iraq gave Russia a green light to "Unilateral" military action without regard to UN agreements. Again...total BS. How many years did the US spend in the UN, and what agreements did we have? How many other nations have fought alongside us in these wars as well? Did Russia follow that model? Nope. They truly did go "Unilateral". So, where are the whiners Sky? I believe you were one of them if I recall correctly.

I can go on all day and readdress your points one by one, but it wouldn't change the realities about the major geopolitical movements. NATO has moved Eastward, the missile defenses are expediting, Russia has lost more influence in Eastern Europe, Russia is looking more and more rogue on a daily basis, and still Russia is on it's way to losing out on nominal trade agreements and other worldwide economic organizations which are economically beneficial to a country. The claims Russia doesn't need any of it, is like the idiot Medvedev claiming Russia "isn't afraid of a new Cold War". OOOOOh. Tough Guy. :roll: Not. Russia couldn't afford new arms races or a new Cold War in general. They simply don't have the means. The contrarian view to this hogwash propaganda or false wishes. The entry into these economic groups is an element needed to sustain themselves economically against a world thriving in new technology. Without it, leveraged economic growth to wolrd standards becomes a challenge. Russia is no world leader in anything other than energy exports. If Russia were the only ones in the world that have timber and oil, you would be right. Their leverage would be greater indeed. But they aren't the only ones with these things.

[Steel_Tomb]

Russia can't afford a Cold War period. I was reading in a defense magazine that although the Russian defense budget has increased its real term value has DECREASED due to soaring inflation, its facilities aren't up to scratch either, AFAIK a lot of them are rotting away after years of neglect in the 90's. Although NATO is considerable weaker at the moment I believe that we aren't the "sitting ducks" (apart from the UK which really can't do anything due to the ME conflicts) that some people may seem to think. Also, even though there are a lot of US forces committed over seas it still has a lot of power, its navy and air force alone would be a formidable opponent to the Russian "threat". Hows the ruskie sub fleet doing thesedays? For them to mount an effective campaign they would need to effectively shut down the Atlantic to shipping in which case europe would run out of supplies, which would need to involve somehow overcoming the GIUK barrier which would be no easy task with the SOSUS network there.

[Skybird]

Fine, SD, good to see you asking questions that already were answered. That way I must not adress them again.

For all others, this is a well-done roadmap to conflict, a chronicle of the steps that led to war since beginning of this year. there may be some things that some people may not have taken note of:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-574812,00.html

I think your (and spiegel's) answers are fallacious propaganda with no bearing on the true realities Sky. That's the problem. These things were not properly addressed in any way whatsoever. You have made claims that without Russia's energy, Europe is doomed. That's just plain dumb. As if Europe doesn't provide anything needed by Russia. And the USA as well. Your view on this is total bunk. You've said China and India will save Russia, but India is also moving closer to the West, and China is keeping quiet on all fronts. China would absolutely love to see a misaligned Russia against NATO. As it weakens Russia considerably. You've also claimed US action in Iraq gave Russia a green light to "Unilateral" military action without regard to UN agreements. Again...total BS. How many years did the US spend in the UN, and what agreements did we have? How many other nations have fought alongside us in these wars as well? Did Russia follow that model? Nope. They truly did go "Unilateral". So, where are the whiners Sky? I believe you were one of them if I recall correctly.

I can go on all day and readdress your points one by one, but it wouldn't change the realities about the major geopolitical movements. NATO has moved Eastward, the missile defenses are expediting, Russia has lost more influence in Eastern Europe, Russia is looking more and more rogue on a daily basis, and still Russia is on it's way to losing out on nominal trade agreements and other worldwide economic organizations which are economically beneficial to a country. The claims Russia doesn't need any of it, is like the idiot Medvedev claiming Russia "isn't afraid of a new Cold War". OOOOOh. Tough Guy. :roll: Not. Russia couldn't afford new arms races or a new Cold War in general. They simply don't have the means. The contrarian view to this hogwash propaganda or false wishes. The entry into these economic groups is an element needed to sustain themselves economically against a world thriving in new technology. Without it, leveraged economic growth to wolrd standards becomes a challenge. Russia is no world leader in anything other than energy exports. If Russia were the only ones in the world that have timber and oil, you would be right. Their leverage would be greater indeed. But they aren't the only ones with these things.

What you do is what a dog is doing when trying to catch its tail: running on spot, in endless circles. I read your reply two hours ago, and now again, but no matter how hard I try, I can't see you having a solid argument, or a descirption that matches reality - only your perceived self-image that constanlty feeds back to itself and that way mistakes itself with being right. But by that, your claims are no arguments at all, but simply this: arbitrary claims. And claiming you can a lot since the day is long.

I remember from the past where endless exchanges like this with you always lead: nowhere. So my offer is to simply wait, watch and see. If Russia can't sustain what it is doing, like you claim, they sooner or later must give up on Georgia and the Ukraine, and watch helplessly as NATO again aggressively moves East, despite it's broken promises to Yeltsin, coming from two US administrations. And there is a huge Asian conference upcoming, and China already has indicated that they support the Russian position. Russia will press for support from Uzbekistan and Kirghistan as well. For them, a neutral position of other states already is the desired success, since it means: no opposition to them. And that has been one of the purposes of their whole game.

I leave it to this short reply, since no matter what I say and no matter what reference to reality I give - you will keep on running after your tail anyway. And that can't be helped with arguments.

[Skybird]

Russia can't afford a Cold War period. I was reading in a defense magazine that although the Russian defense budget has increased its real term value has DECREASED due to soaring inflation, its facilities aren't up to scratch either, AFAIK a lot of them are rotting away after years of neglect in the 90's. Although NATO is considerable weaker at the moment I believe that we aren't the "sitting ducks" (apart from the UK which really can't do anything due to the ME conflicts) that some people may seem to think. Also, even though there are a lot of US forces committed over seas it still has a lot of power, its navy and air force alone would be a formidable opponent to the Russian "threat". Hows the ruskie sub fleet doing thesedays? For them to mount an effective campaign they would need to effectively shut down the Atlantic to shipping in which case europe would run out of supplies, which would need to involve somehow overcoming the GIUK barrier which would be no easy task with the SOSUS network there.
Not sure if your intention was to adress me, if so, you did it in vein. see what I said under point 1.), at the top of this thread.

[Sea Demon]

I remember from the past where endless exchanges like this with you always lead: nowhere. So my offer is to simply wait, watch and see. If Russia can't sustain what it is doing, like you claim, they sooner or later must give up on Georgia and the Ukraine, and watch helplessly as NATO again aggressively moves East, despite it's broken promises to Yeltsin, coming from two US administrations. And there is a huge Asian conference upcoming, and China already has indicated that they support the Russian position. Russia will press for support from Uzbekistan and Kirghistan as well. For them, a neutral position of other states already is the desired success, since it means: no opposition to them. And that has been one of the purposes of their whole game.

I leave it to this short reply, since no matter what I say and no matter what reference to reality I give - you will keep on running after your tail anyway. And that can't be helped with arguments.

Yours is not a reality of any kind. Especially when looking at the sum totals of what items geostrategically have played out. Everything Russia has wanted, has become the opposite reality due to their stupid/shortsighted miscalculations. And when looking at who has what needs in the long run, they are simply backing themselves in a corner. You are merely a blind propagandist for Russia, and display only the same empty rhetoric as the blind Medvedev as of recently regarding their "needs". What you say here in these forums is no different than his own empty rhetoric. And Skybird, in the past, you've been entirely wrong on seemingly every single prediction you've made regarding matters of global geostrategic circumstances. You've lost your credibility to predict any outcomes long ago. To me, this is only the same biased doom and gloom you always have given here. And ultimately, you will be wrong again in thinking any of this is beneficial to Russia in the long term. Or any of it means doom for the West. You were predicting America's economic and military demise due to Iraq only a few short years ago. And your predictions there now look terribly silly.

[Sea Demon]

Not sure if your intention was to adress me, if so, you did it in vein. see what I said under point 1.), at the top of this thread.

Your point #1 doesn't address the realities of Russia's current strategic arsenal at all. Merely wishful thinking. They have more money right now, but they are still no economic powerhouse. (Which is why they need nominal trade agreements and entry into world economic bodies, something they know, something you have no clue about). If we were to go back to the status of the Cold War and both sides were to begin the race for nuclear primacy....Russia's already lost in terms of quantity, quality, and especially reliability. They could not build as fast and as far as we could. And making an enemy out of 26 or more nations doesn't help them at all. Your point is moot.

[Thomen]

EDIT: Nvm..
gonna sit this one out..

[Bruno Lotse]

Not sure if your intention was to adress me, if so, you did it in vein. see what I said under point 1.), at the top of this thread.
Your point #1 doesn't address the realities of Russia's current strategic arsenal at all. Merely wishful thinking. They have more money right now, but they are still no economic powerhouse. (Which is why they need nominal trade agreements and entry into world economic bodies, something they know, something you have no clue about). If we were to go back to the status of the Cold War and both sides were to begin the race for nuclear primacy....Russia's already lost in terms of quantity, quality, and especially reliability. They could not build as fast and as far as we could. And making an enemy out of 26 or more nations doesn't help them at all. Your point is moot.

You guys stay put in Afghanstan and Iraq
and in the meantime Russia will pick up. :rotfl:

DO NOT QUIT THOSE AREAS

[Sea Demon]

You guys stay put in Afghanstan and Iraq
and in the meantime Russia will pick up. :rotfl:

DO NOT QUIT THOSE AREAS

Iraq is winding down significantly. Afghanistan is no major problem for us currently at all. But rest assured Bruno, if it came down to it, and global war with Russia was imminent.......Iraq, Afghanistan and any other minor action would be put directly on the back burner. I believe we would completely pull our troops out of whatever region to destroy Russian military units wherever we would need to engage them. Russia would be the priority....Afghanistan would be a forgotten/deserted theatre of action. Don't ever think twice on this one. Our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would not inhibit our ability to reorder, and redeploy to the bigger threat. In the meantime, we won't pull our troops from those regions. Where they're at currently actually puts them pretty close to the Russian border if needed.

[Sea Demon]

And there is a huge Asian conference upcoming, and China already has indicated that they support the Russian position. Russia will press for support from Uzbekistan and Kirghistan as well.

China has been dead silent. What are you talking about??? This shows you don't know what's going on. Right now, I'm not sure about what China's views are in regards to this situation. I think that when China thinks about it...and they will, Russia's actions presents a negative precedent for China and her provinces. China has all these little provinces under it's control, and wishes to bring Taiwan completely in the fold. A few of these provinces have other ideas and wouldn't mind more autonomy, or even independance. Russia's ideal in breaking up Georgian provinces is not the example China wants for itself. In reality Sky....China's so called support of Russia here is a figment of your imagination. China cares about China...not Russia. I haven't seen anything that shows China's support for Russia in any way, shape, or form. And after thinking about it a little, I think the above reason is why.

And Russia can press for support from any other Central Asian country they wish. Doesn't mean they will get it. We can play that game to.

[Sea Demon]

Here we go:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/27/content_9723473.htm

Doesn't sound like China supports Russia at all. Bingo. China knows this could lead to states doing the same thing to provinces China claims as it's own. Territories or claimed provinces such as Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, etc... China knows Russia's actions set a dangerous precedent for China.

[Skybird]

SD,

your attempted distortions slowly but surely kill nerves again. Please save me from your enlightened insights. You have made such ridiculous statements already that for me you have disqualified yourself as a disucssion partner here. what you offer is nothing but claims in ignorration of realities, and the same self-glorifying propaganda I remember you for from years ago. Please, simply leave me alone.

The last Ossetia-threads somewhat derailed into emotional venting, and even straight propaganda and nationalism. If you want to continue with that attitude, go back there - but don't start again here. Of yourse you can disagree with my views, but if you make that known, do it in a neutral way, like I post neutrally as well.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That's fine Skybird, but can you clarify where the China thing came from (sources)?

[Sea Demon]

I can't see how you can draw this conclusion from that report. Seriously, that report has only two (2) sentences from a spokesman, and that's two (2) typical diplomat empty statements.
On the other hand, from the same source : http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/27/content_9724033.htm

I'm not sure how anybody can infer that China supports Russia based upon that report. China has not shown any support for Russia from any sources I've seen...even though it was alluded by another poster. And regardless, it's blatantly obvious why China won't really support Russia from a geostrategic standpoint. Using this article as a guide to their initial views, it's kind of apparent they won't. They can't afford to. It goes against every principle enshrined in Chinese reunification stances for more than 5 decades. What statement in there gives you any indication that China's ready and willing to take Russia's side here. In case you were unaware, China is big on "their own" territorial integrity. I'm not saying they would support any enlargement of NATO. But it's obvious that supporting Russia here may be a dangerous precedent to Chinese "unity". I don't believe they'll make noise either way. This was just a simple state to state meeting with the usual pleasantries. Ultimately though, Russia will not be able to rely on China for anything.

[Carotio]

Just wanted to post a link to a Facebook group in case you're a mamber there:

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2211810378&ref=nf

It's not an anti-Russia group, but a group against Russia's policy and behaviour.

I joined, because I feel Russia is acting aggresively to an unacceptable extent.
Their claims about Kosova/Kosovo as precedence doesn't give them the right to steal territory like this in our modern times. Just wait when Abkhazia and South-Ossetia are independant, as if they ever will be recognized by the world in general, they will then ask to be annexed by Russia. It makes me think of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia in 1938. It's not much different.
Also, I must admit that I disagreed strongly with Western Powers, when they decided to recognize the independance of Kosova. Not only because I feared what it would lead to, but also because a migration across borders during many years shouldn't give the newcomers the right to break the country up. An extended autonomy should do just fine, both in the case of Kosovo and in the case of Georgian break-away provinces.
In any case, an independance should always be achieved peacefully by diplomatic negotiations at best, and not by military violence and threats.

[Von Tonner]

"Investors are pulling out of Russia (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60abb0d4-6fb1-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1) in record numbers following the Russian invasion of Georgia this month, the Financial Times reports Friday. Citing Russian Central Bank data released Thursday, the FT says foreign currency reserves fell $16.8 billion in the week beginning Aug. 8, one of the largest pullouts since the Russian ruble collapse of 1998. Gennady Melikyan, the Central Bank's deputy chairman, acknowledged it is the "political situation" that has triggered the mass capital flight."

How anyone can argue that Russia will benefit in anyway with its present stance is mind boggling. It lost the Cold War because its economy could simply not sustain the arms race - and that was as a union. Now Russia believes, as a single state on its own, it can go down that path and succeed is simply self deception.

[Sea Demon]

But where do you get that from exactly ? You take a spokeman's words because they vaguely conform to your idea and you reject Russia & China's presidents words because they don't.

Nowhere in the article you posted does it talk of any support for Russia's stance. It was just a state visit with all the usual pleasantries. Nothing major. With China you need to read between the lines. I think that Chinese government official pretty much summed up the apprehension China feels about this situation. Mr. Hu will not give Medvedev any false pretenses either.

[Happy Times]

"Investors are pulling out of Russia (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60abb0d4-6fb1-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1) in record numbers following the Russian invasion of Georgia this month, the Financial Times reports Friday. Citing Russian Central Bank data released Thursday, the FT says foreign currency reserves fell $16.8 billion in the week beginning Aug. 8, one of the largest pullouts since the Russian ruble collapse of 1998. Gennady Melikyan, the Central Bank's deputy chairman, acknowledged it is the "political situation" that has triggered the mass capital flight."

How anyone can argue that Russia will benefit in anyway with its present stance is mind boggling. It lost the Cold War because its economy could simply not sustain the arms race - and that was as a union. Now Russia believes, as a single state on its own, it can go down that path and succeed is simply self deception.

Ask Skybird, he believes Russians and Arabs will own us and we will do everything they demand.

[Sea Demon]

That's damn right, the problem is, who's supposed to be an example in that matter ? :-?

Too little, too late. And in this case absolutely not good enough. You will only further the inevitable demise of the UN with these false equivications. How did Russia follow our lead in any way? If they did, they would have wasted their time like we did for months, and eventually get a worthless UN agreement in hand. Nope. They went "Unilateral". And your words here ring hollow.

[Sea Demon]

"Investors are pulling out of Russia (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60abb0d4-6fb1-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1) in record numbers following the Russian invasion of Georgia this month, the Financial Times reports Friday.

This is only the beginning. Russian stocks are falling as well due to uncertainties in a Russian jittery/nervous market. If push comes to shove, we can maneuver to make Russia a real bad investment choice in terms of increased instability. I wouldn't be surprised if we disallow the Russians to invest in Western firms in the near future as well.

[Carotio]

In any case, an independance should always be achieved peacefully by diplomatic negotiations at best, and not by military violence and threats.

That's damn right, the problem is, who's supposed to be an example in that matter ? :-?

You know, I used the "should" word :lol:
Now that I think about it, I can't really remember any historical incident, when a region or territory became independant without any sort of violence included.

Try and compare independance conflicts with divorces between married couples. The problem is quite simple human differences not comprehending the opponent.

[Von Tonner]

But where do you get that from exactly ? You take a spokeman's words because they vaguely conform to your idea and you reject Russia & China's presidents words because they don't.
Nowhere in the article you posted does it talk of any support for Russia's stance. It was just a state visit with all the usual pleasantries. Nothing major. With China you need to read between the lines. I think that Chinese government official pretty much summed up the apprehension China feels about this situation. Mr. Hu will not give Medvedev any false pretenses either.
I think it is quite clear China is not going to support Russia's stance. As Sea Demon states, the fragmentation of Georgia is contrary to its view of its own region.


"But if Putin hoped Beijing would support Russia's actions in Georgia with the same enthusiasm that Moscow endorsed China's putting down of restive minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang in recent months, he was disappointed.
Beijing's official mouthpieces began by attempting to be scrupulously even-handed in their reaction to Russia's Georgian escapade and the resulting sharp chill in relations with Washington and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
This rapidly changed into evident disapproval of the Russian action, as voiced by an editorial in the Communist party-controlled People's Daily newspaper on Aug. 12. This started with the view "War is not the way to settle conflicts" and went on from there.
Beyond the platitudes, however, China approaches all international situations involving minority rights and claims to sovereignty or self-determination with the utmost care."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=75ea3659-7ab6-49dd-a9a1-1aa7f773cdb2

[Sea Demon]

Now Russia believes, as a single state on its own, it can go down that path and succeed is simply self deception.

Right. Take on a consortium of 26 or more fully developed economies single handedly. It's amazing what some people on this forum are trying to convince themselves of. In the short term, I believe Russia is going to be real lonely..real soon. Their not the only country with oil and timber. If they continue down this road, they can take thir resources and stuff it. In addition, the Chinese nor the Indians are as stupid as some in this forum make them out to be.

[Happy Times]

EU 27 plus US, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, thats my count on who will stick together if things get hard.

[Von Tonner]

In any case, an independance should always be achieved peacefully by diplomatic negotiations at best, and not by military violence and threats.
That's damn right, the problem is, who's supposed to be an example in that matter ? :-?
You know, I used the "should" word :lol:
Now that I think about it, I can't really remember any historical incident, when a region or territory became independant without any sort of violence included.

Try and compare independance conflicts with divorces between married couples. The problem is quite simple human differences not comprehending the opponent.
Well, we gave Walvis Bay back to the newly independant state of Namibia. Ok, it was only a town but it was ours.:D However, Namibia's independance resulted in a hard fought bush war.

"In 1990, South-West Africa gained independence as Namibia, but Walvis Bay remained under South African sovereignty. It was not until midnight on 28 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_28) 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) that sovereignty over Walvis Bay was formally transferred to Namibia.
"

[Happy Times]

In any case, an independance should always be achieved peacefully by diplomatic negotiations at best, and not by military violence and threats.
That's damn right, the problem is, who's supposed to be an example in that matter ? :-?
You know, I used the "should" word :lol:
Now that I think about it, I can't really remember any historical incident, when a region or territory became independant without any sort of violence included.

Try and compare independance conflicts with divorces between married couples. The problem is quite simple human differences not comprehending the opponent.
Well, we gave Walvis Bay back to the newly independant state of Namibia. Ok, it was only a town but it was ours.:D However, Namibia's independance resulted in a hard fought bush war.

"In 1990, South-West Africa gained independence as Namibia, but Walvis Bay remained under South African sovereignty. It was not until midnight on 28 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_28) 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) that sovereignty over Walvis Bay was formally transferred to Namibia.
"

You really kicked some Russian and Cuban ass.:up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoJNNuwTvs

[Von Tonner]

You really kicked some Russian and Cuban ass.:up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoJNNuwTvs
That we sure did.:yep:

[Sea Demon]

I think it is quite clear China is not going to support Russia's stance. .........the fragmentation of Georgia is contrary to its view of its own region.


That's exactly right. If China recognizes the break-away states in Georgia, it will ruin it's own situation regarding Taiwan and Tibet. If China backs the fracturing of Georgia then they will have shot themselves in the foot over their own credibility regarding their views over independence movements in their own backyard. I think Mr. Medvedev is gonna go home empty handed.

[Skybird]

Gas prices are still up, and even if they fall a bit, like currently, the longterm trend is upward. Russian strategy is a longterm strategy, and ignores immediate shortterm effects. Their internal focus is not on creating a producing economy like in the West, or going into a conventional arms race. that may irritate some of you, but that's it. You are not talking about a western appendix running by western rules. This is a foreign place. It is named Russia, in good and bad. And it sells us what we need desperately: gas and oil. europe is unable to compensate the loss of these sources of energy without many years of preparation.

The West suffers from inflation, the financial crises in the US, the American GNP is falling, and even in once booming germany there is new talk of a recession. at the same time the russians have learned from the chinese how to exploitm american vulneability, and have bought an already tremendous ammount of - in itself: worthless - treasury bonds, like the chinese. It does not need the chinese alone anymore to deeply shake the Us economy by flooding international markets with these bonds all of a sudden: the Russian stocks of them are sufficient to do extreme damage as well - and they still keep buying them with petrodollars: america'S vulnerability is growing. This kind of warfare doe snot need tanks. It is acalled "soft power", and the chinese have shown in the recent 30 years that it is probably the most effective strategy of our time (military hardware fanatics may not understand this, but they are excused :D ). Oil and gas all in all is short on world markets, and even with China's growth rate slighty decreasing (a qustion of time anyway, the more you have gained the smaller room there is for additonal gains), energy demands will grow massively over the next years and decades - as long as the system does not break down completely. and while this will crush russia in its current form, it will damage the West as well to a degree that it will be too busy to care for Russia anymore at all.

And who is currently buying oil from whom: Russia from the West? Or the West from Russia? You guys all are aiming far too short. Even if Russia suffers immediate economic setbacks from sanctions or loosing investements, in the long range it is in the stronger psoition. We need it's oil more than it needs our economic investement. We even cannot afford to keep up economic penalties for too long. That hurts some people'S nationalistic egos here, but that is how it is. If they do not sell their oil to us: China and India stand ready to buy the European share.

China has been quoted in several articles I had over the past days to have indicated not to oppose Russia (already the minimum goal for Russia acchieved) at the coming summit, this has been indicated by diplomats who are engaged in the preparartion talks for that summita, and there is I would say a 50:50 chnace that they will even go so far to actvely accept the Russian position in public (they always play very careful and often avoid too exposed positioning). As I said in my starting essay, "Medwedutin" had to calculate the gains from using force in Georgia against the risks regarding the other ex-soviet provinces taking Ossetia as a precedence to refer to when wanting indepedence (this time fro Russia) for themselves. He has weigted the display of force as more convincing for interested observers, than the risk they could use force to claim independence for themselves - and if they do, they would have to deal witzh the russian army again. That his calculation works is not as unreasonable as some of you think. In the region, Russia is a military giant, it did not even flex all it'S muscles and still outnumbered Georgian army by a relation of 48:1, it claims, and eorgia will need years to recover from the 6-day war we just saw. There were two Chechnyan wars, and while the first was unsatisfactory due to Russia using a queer kind of - still bloody - self-restraint and incompetenmce in army-leading, in the second they waged war with full effect and bombed parts of the country and several cities back into the stoneage - without any self-restraint this time. This taught a lesson in the region. Nobody speaks of chechnya anymore, but all people in the region still have it on their mind as a warning example.

Now, China. Why has China an interst in legitimizing the Ossetian strategy of Russia, at least not condemning it? Very simple: it is a precedent it could refer to when wishing to use force (against separatists) in it's own country. China has currently five dozen (!) separatist conflicts inside it's borders, that is why the Tibetan conflict (you remember? they used military force there just short time ago) for them is nothing special like in the West, but just one runner amongst 60 others. china has an interest in keeping these conflicts in check, and eventually using the military for that as well, like they did on the square in Bejing. they too calculate (as shown in Tibet) that the gains from using military force weigh heavier than the risk from accepting the independence of one province setting a precedence for tohers. even more so, such a motivation could lead to welcomed outbrakes of violence that srve as an excuse to "pacify" the issue once and for all by militarily crushing it (like the russian trap in Georgia created a bait that after the Trottel Saakashvilli swallowed it became a trigger that allowed the military humiliation of Georgia).

that currently investors pull back from Russia, for the moment does not mean much, and was expected by me, and by the Russians too, no doubt. It was one of the most obvious and to be expected steps, wasn't it. However, this does not mean that Russian investors pull out of their investements in western companies and corporations. they do not, and carry on buying themselves in. If the western investor's retreat will remain, or is just temporary, remains to be seen, I think in some month things already will look different again - money does not stink.

I repeatedly said that the West overestimates the attractiveness of it'S values and offered deals and instituion memberships for the russians. But again some of you already have referred to arguments again basing on that the Russians hurt themselves if they do not play ball and do not fall into the ruleset outlined by the West - as you have learned to expect them to always do over the past 20 years. Well, I cannot help it then. None of the threats you outlined have been ignored by russian strategy calculation, I promise you, and still they have choosen it. This should tell you something about wether they agree with you or not. their priorities and their focus of attention simply is not set where you demand it to be. don't take it personally. they simply have no obligation to see it like you tell them they should see it. You simply are too short-sighted.

the problem I see with some of you is that you are not only unable to see things from sombody else's position - you even actively reject to try to think yourself into him to understand what drives him - although this would help you to form reactions and strategies that would leave you with more than just empty threats and hot words. Instead, you simply use your own fantasy as a surrogate for his motives you do not understand. Always insisting on your own views exclusively and your assumptions aboiut the other'S motives without caring for the other'S standpoint at all pleases your ego - but it will get you nowhere, only multiplies your conflicts with him. and when he does different than you demand, you yell and stomp your feet and don't know why and how.

US is in the middle of the election show. The EU is paralysed over the constitution, divided on consequences regarding russia, and speaks with several voices. There is a deep rift in NATO, widening since many, mayn years. the afghan war goes lost and detoriates from year to year. the result from Iraq is anything but what has been desired for by Neocons and US corporations, and is a strategic loss and absolutely counterproductive, having acchieved the opposite of what was intended, again heaving created a failed state. We depend on Russia more than they do depend on us, economically, and diplomatically. Russia has undisputed military superiority in the Caucasean region, and the better longterm perspectives in this standoff. the moral authority of the Us has been corrupted massively by Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, patriot act, Abu Ghraib, and bombing the chinese embassy, and in no way it is in the position to morally lecture others about territorial integrity, international law, UN demands and attacking others. the West's moral authority has been corrupted by betraying promises to Russia made by two US administrations, and violating the territorial integrity of Serbia. - And some of you guys really live by the illusion that the West could adress the Russians over Georgia from a position of strength, and demand them to comply with western interests? That is not only absurd - that is hilarious.

[Happy Times]

I think it is quite clear China is not going to support Russia's stance. .........the fragmentation of Georgia is contrary to its view of its own region.


That's exactly right. If China recognizes the break-away states in Georgia, it will ruin it's own situation regarding Taiwan and Tibet. If China backs the fracturing of Georgia then they will have shot themselves in the foot over their own credibility regarding their views over independence movements in their own backyard. I think Mr. Medvedev is gonna go home empty handed.

Finnish news reported that Medvedev said China backs them up, i guess the Chinese arent cabable of giving that statement themselfs.:roll:
Medevedevs call for support fom the Chinese must be wiewed by them as a clear sign of weakness.

[XabbaRus]

Well according to that great news service the BBC, they have quoted Medvedev as saying he has the support of China...

[Sea Demon]

Gas prices are still up, and even if they fall a bit, like currently, the longterm trend is upward. Russian strategy is a longterm strategy, and ignores immediate shortterm effects.

And that is their biggest failing. Because in the longterm, they're setting themselves up for more failure. With everything else, you're just blindly repeating yourself and have failed to address any of the realities Russia has seen in it's own geostrategic misfortunes. I know you're desperate to show a weak and feeble West, even if you have to resort to false claims of Chinese support and such. But in the real world, Russia has no real leverage at all, has backed itself into a winless corner, and has put into motion everything they have been desperate to avoid.

Now all they have, and all you have is propaganda like "Russia isn't afraid of a new Cold War" and your infamous Russia doesn't need mutual Western trade or investment. Both of which are totally laughable. Or your thinking that Russia will refuse sales of natural gas to Europe. Not likely, as they lose their only link of leverage. Keep dreaming Skybird, but I think Medvedev is headed for a heartbreak with his little summit with Chairman Hu. And I think more will go bad for Russia in the future if they keep at it. They simply cannot compete with the forces they've stupidly aligned themselves against. And for reasons explained above, China will not help Russia despite your views that China "supports the Russian position".

[Happy Times]

Well according to that great news service the BBC, they have quoted Medvedev as saying he has the support of China...

EU has stated it has the support of Magic Kingdom.

[Sea Demon]

Finnish news reported that Medvedev said China backs them up, i guess the Chinese arent cabable of giving that statement themselfs.:roll:
Medevedevs call for support fom the Chinese must be wiewed by them as a clear sign of weakness.

Yeah, I'll wait for China to make this statement themselves. At this point, I can't trust anything the Russians say. It's back to back propaganda from them as of late. And yes, Russia is positioning itself very weakly and feebly to China.

[XabbaRus]

And it's not back to back propoganda with the BBC or other western press organisations.

I can't trust the BBC when their journalists are making basic errors in the history of the region.

One of them said that Stalin gave the Crimea away in 1954....quite a neat trick.

saying that I am avoiding the BBC but the Financial Times is good for decent articles and balanced analysis and comment. Also mainland publications I'm finding are better for news from all sides.

[Happy Times]

The BBC article.

EU considers sanctions on Russia

EU leaders are considering sanctions "and many other means" against Russia over the crisis in Georgia, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said

He gave no further details but added "this will be solved by negotiation".

Moscow's military offensive in Georgia and its recognition of independence for Georgia's breakaway enclaves has been condemned by the West.

But Russia's president says he has the support of China and four central Asian states for its actions in Georgia.

Speaking at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said the grouping's united position would have "international resonance".

"I hope it will serve as a serious signal to those who try to turn black into white and justify this aggression," he said in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

He was referring to Georgia's attempt earlier this month to retake the Russian-backed separatist region of South Ossetia by force after a series of clashes.

Russian forces subsequently launched a counter-attack and the conflict ended with the ejection of Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia and an EU-brokered ceasefire.

France has called an emergency EU summit on Monday to reassess relations with Russia after its refusal to pull back all its troops from Georgia in line with the truce agreement.

The BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels says Mr Kouchner's mention of sanctions is a complete U-turn from his position earlier this week, when he insisted they were not on the agenda.

Russia's foreign minister described talk of sanctions as an emotional response that demonstrated Western confusion over the situation.


Call for dialogue

In a joint statement, the SCO gave their support for Russia's "active role" in resolving the conflict in Georgia by "assisting in peace and cooperation in the region".

"The SCO member states express their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue," the statement said.

The SCO - which includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - was established in 2001 as a counterweight to Nato influence in the region.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says it is tempting to see Russia turning eastwards as its relations with the West sour.

But, he says, it would be wrong to see this as the emergence of a coherent anti-Western bloc, as its most powerful member - China - could hardly be more integrated into the international economy.

China also sees territorial integrity and the defence of national sovereignty as almost sacrosanct values in its diplomacy abroad, our correspondent says.

Earlier, seven of the world's leading industrialised nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and UK - said Moscow's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia violated Georgia's integrity and sovereignty.


The group also said it deplored Russia's "excessive use of military force in Georgia and its continued occupation of parts of Georgia".

The UK's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Western countries should re-examine their relations with Russia and warned Russia not to start a new Cold War.

Speaking during a visit to Ukraine, Mr Miliband said Moscow had not reconciled itself with the new map of the region and that the West should look at ways to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Russia said it was the last country that wanted a new Cold War.

President Medvedev has said he was obliged to recognise the independence of the two regions after the "genocide" started by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in South Ossetia in August.

He also blamed Georgia for failing to negotiate a peaceful settlement




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7585580.stm



Russia is in a world of hurt.:D

[XabbaRus]

And your so happy about that. Don;t you care about the consequences where this could lead....

I actually find your gratification out of the situation quite sickening and disturbing.

[Happy Times]

And your so happy about that. Don;t you care about the consequences where this could lead....

I actually find your gratification out of the situation quite sickening and disturbing.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4834/putinhandsupbj6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4834/putinhandsupbj6.591629c802.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=147&i=putinhandsupbj6.jpg)

Руки Bверх

Ofcourse im happy, these despots have to be contained. If you think peace in Europe is sick and disturbing you should move there and rally around Stalin.

[Skybird]

The Shanghai meeting did not slam Russia, and mentioned positively it's active role. slightly positive outcome for Russia.

China, no matter it's real interests, did not take an opposing position to Russia, and did not challenge it. If it is left to this, this is at least the minimum goal for Russian'S definition of a positive outcome regarding china.

Mission accomplished, although maybe no major victory, so still a victory. A "world of hurt" is something different.

The West's position again is that of hot words and loud sounds, so no change there. and how impressed Russia is by western reactions, should be clear by now. Word is that taking back visa freedoms for Russian travellers are under consideration. Ouch- that hurts!

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For the record, can you provide sources (regarding the outcome of SOC, that is)? Even if they are in German, so we can throw them into Babelfish? Thanks.

[Happy Times]

The Shanghai meeting did not slam Russia, and mentioned positively it's active role. slightly positive outcome for Russia.

China, no matter it's real interests, did not take an opposing position to Russia, and did not challenge it. If it is left to this, this is at least the minimum goal for Russian'S definition of a positive outcome regarding china.

Mission accomplished, although maybe no major victory, so still a victory. A "world of hurt" is something different.

The West's position again is that of hot words and loud sounds, so no change there. and how impressed Russia is by western reactions, should be clear by now. Word is that taking back visa freedoms for Russian travellers are under consideration. Ouch- that hurts!

I see no victory in the Chinese position for Russia.
Those visa freedoms are one way of hitting the Russian upper and middle class, like i predicted earlier, it will hurt.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I see no victory in the Chinese position for Russia.
Those visa freedoms are one way of hitting the Russian upper and middle class, like i predicted earlier, it will hurt.

Even if China was all for Russia's actions in Georgia, do you think she'll jeopardize her relationships with the West by publicly showing a huge vote of support, thus drawing all the spears towards her?

[Happy Times]

I see no victory in the Chinese position for Russia.
Those visa freedoms are one way of hitting the Russian upper and middle class, like i predicted earlier, it will hurt.

Even if China was all for Russia's actions in Georgia, do you think she'll jeopardize her relationships with the West by publicly showing a huge vote of support, thus drawing all the spears towards her?

So they maybe secretly support Russia? Interesting diplomacy..
They secretly wish all the worst for Russia is more likely scenario.

[Von Tonner]

Even if Russia suffers immediate economic setbacks from sanctions or loosing investements, in the long range it is in the stronger psoition.
The question is, are the people of Russia prepared to suffer economically in support of Putin and his lackeys political direction? Believe me, once it starts to hurt the pocket of the guy in the street in Moscow when he sees himself paying more and more for imports, for food, for rent etc because his currency has gone down the toilet - that will invigorate new life into Putin's political opposition. The days of Putin being able to suppress the will of the Russian people have long gone - they have tasted democracy and Kentucky and there is no going back.



the problem I see with some of you is that you are not only unable to see things from sombody else's position -
Well, having lived in a country shuned at one time by the West I can tell you it is not a pleasant experience. So I tend to think for a moment how an ordinary Russian citizen views this conflict. Does he or she want to go back to been impovirished, to see a lowering of their standard of living, to be restricted in their relationship with the west in whatever form? I doubt it. Because to be honest, that is the risk they are carrying. Democracies do not rattle their sabers at each other - never have. Putin, simply put, is not a democrat - hence the position Russia now finds herself in.

[Skybird]

Just try the usual news outlets, Kazuaki. I even had in on the radio already.

just one of several:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/944f00c2-74d8-11dd-ab30-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

Note that they already manipulated the headline. Where the summit'S declaration says the group expressed concerns "with connection to recent tensions around the Ossetian issue", the headline tries to redirect it to concerns about Russia's role. And that is suggestive language, to put it mildly. China'S statement also is careful. what they said:"China expresses its concerns about the latest changes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, (...) We understand the complex history and realities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. At the same time, reflecting China’s consistent stance on such issues, we hope all the parties can appropriately resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation.” becomes: China "said it was concerned about Russia’s decision to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

So, no new immediate problems on the Shanghai front for Russia. At least the minimum goal acchieved. as the article said the Shanghai group decided against a more obvious lining up with russia desire just to avoid an unwanted provocation of the Western nations over this. so if they would not have had their own interests in the game, results probably would be less diplomatically hidden in careful words that are open to interpretation. And that they are open for interpretation already is the minimum gain Russia hoped to acchieve. Or did anyone seriously expect china to engage in the Caucasean internals? even me have not said or expected so.

However.

[XabbaRus]

And your so happy about that. Don;t you care about the consequences where this could lead....

I actually find your gratification out of the situation quite sickening and disturbing.


Ofcourse im happy, these despots have to be contained. If you think peace in Europe is sick and disturbing you should move there and rally around Stalin.

When did I say peace in Europe is sick and disgusting? From the way you speak it seems like you'd like to see Russia get a kicking, even from open conflict. You post smarmy, sarcastic and sorry bordering on outright racist comments about Russia with little smilies everytime there is any information that suggests Russia is going to get a kicking. If it did come to war, would you be there on the front line?

I want peace and stability however I don't think the rhetoric that is coming from both sides, especially from that ***** Milliband is conducive to either.

[Skybird]

The question is, are the people of Russia prepared to suffer economically in support of Putin and his lackeys political direction? Believe me, once it starts to hurt the pocket of the guy in the street in Moscow when he sees himself paying more and more for imports, for food, for rent etc because his currency has gone down the toilet - that will invigorate new life into Putin's political opposition. The days of Putin being able to suppress the will of the Russian people have long gone - they have tasted democracy and Kentucky and there is no going back.

He has enormous support for himself, and even higher support for his stand on the Georgian issue. At least 3 in 5 support Putin and prefer him over Medwedew, that is a long-known number, another 20% support Medwedew Leaves just 20% for all the other political figures that are there.

A representative poll from Moscow's leading polling institute today was quoted in one article saying that 3 in 4 support Putin in the Georgian case. 1 in 2 sees Georgia as america'S puppet and america being responsible for the war, 1 in 3 say it is Georgia'S own responsibility, and less than 1 in 10 said that it was the russian's fault. As HT at some place pointed out, Georgian war last but not least is about creating domestic support. and the more pressure there is on Russia, the closer Russaisn will rally around Putin. Rallying around the flag in times of external threats is a reflex you see in many countries. serbia as well. america. China.

"We should have trampled on Georgia":
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-573839,00.html


the problem I see with some of you is that you are not only unable to see things from sombody else's position -
Well, having lived in a country shuned at one time by the West I can tell you it is not a pleasant experience. So I tend to think for a moment how an ordinary Russian citizen views this conflict. Does he or she want to go back to been impovirished, to see a lowering of their standard of living, to be restricted in their relationship with the west in whatever form? I doubt it. Because to be honest, that is the risk they are carrying. Democracies do not rattle their sabers at each other - never have. Putin, simply put, is not a democrat - hence the position Russia now finds herself in.[/quote]

I never said russia is a democracy. I often said it is nothing less than that! but that is excalty the point. and many people hold democracy in high disrespect there. Even over here, in eastgermany, anti-democratic tendencies are popping up like mushrooms in late summer. Democracy is not too püopular in russia, and never was, and for the forseeable future will not be with the exception of the usual suspects: opposing intellectuals, which form a minority only. Isn't this what I am always preaching: that it is pojn tless to accuse russia not following democracy's rules when as a matter of fact it is no democracy at all? "Putinism" works well over there, for exactly this simple reason!

this is one of the west's constant mistakes: to assume that all world wants - and has to want - the model of western democracy. The EU fails with this.america fails with this in two wars. people, get back to your senses! We must not like it, but that's the way it is. Autocratic rulers are preferred in much of the Islamic world, and in the territories of the former Soviet Union as well. It works better with them, than democracy made in the EU or US. If you perceive it like that, does not count and is unimportnt. Thnat the local residents see it like that - this is the deciding point.

[Skybird]

The question is, are the people of Russia prepared to suffer economically in support of Putin and his lackeys political direction? Believe me, once it starts to hurt the pocket of the guy in the street in Moscow when he sees himself paying more and more for imports, for food, for rent etc because his currency has gone down the toilet - that will invigorate new life into Putin's political opposition. The days of Putin being able to suppress the will of the Russian people have long gone - they have tasted democracy and Kentucky and there is no going back.

He has enormous support for himself, and even higher support for his stand on the Georgian issue. At least 3 in 5 support Putin and prefer him over Medwedew, that is a long-known number, another 20% support Medwedew Leaves just 20% for all the other political figures that are there.

A representative poll from Moscow's leading polling institute today was quoted in one article saying that 3 in 4 support Putin in the Georgian case. 1 in 2 sees Georgia as america'S puppet and america being responsible for the war, 1 in 3 say it is Georgia'S own responsibility, and less than 1 in 10 said that it was the russian's fault. As HT at some place pointed out, Georgian war last but not least is about creating domestic support. and the more pressure there is on Russia, the closer Russaisn will rally around Putin. Rallying around the flag in times of external threats is a reflex you see in many countries. serbia as well. america. China.

"We should have trampled on Georgia":
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-573839,00.html



Well, having lived in a country shuned at one time by the West I can tell you it is not a pleasant experience. So I tend to think for a moment how an ordinary Russian citizen views this conflict. Does he or she want to go back to been impovirished, to see a lowering of their standard of living, to be restricted in their relationship with the west in whatever form? I doubt it. Because to be honest, that is the risk they are carrying. Democracies do not rattle their sabers at each other - never have. Putin, simply put, is not a democrat - hence the position Russia now finds herself in.

I never said russia is a democracy. I often said it is nothing less than that! but that is excalty the point. and many people hold democracy in high disrespect there. Even over here, in eastgermany, anti-democratic tendencies are popping up like mushrooms in late summer. Democracy is not too püopular in russia, and never was, and for the forseeable future will not be with the exception of the usual suspects: opposing intellectuals, which form a minority only. Isn't this what I am always preaching: that it is pojn tless to accuse russia not following democracy's rules when as a matter of fact it is no democracy at all? "Putinism" works well over there, for exactly this simple reason!

this is one of the west's constant mistakes: to assume that all world wants - and has to want - the model of western democracy. The EU fails with this.america fails with this in two wars. people, get back to your senses! We must not like it, but that's the way it is. Autocratic rulers are preferred in much of the Islamic world, and in the territories of the former Soviet Union as well. It works better with them, than democracy made in the EU or US. If you perceive it like that, does not count and is unimportnt. Thnat the local residents see it like that - this is the deciding point. Our acceptance of understanding of their difrerence is neither wanted, nor needed by them.

[Happy Times]

And your so happy about that. Don;t you care about the consequences where this could lead....

I actually find your gratification out of the situation quite sickening and disturbing.


Ofcourse im happy, these despots have to be contained. If you think peace in Europe is sick and disturbing you should move there and rally around Stalin.

When did I say peace in Europe is sick and disgusting? From the way you speak it seems like you'd like to see Russia get a kicking, even from open conflict. You post smarmy, sarcastic and sorry bordering on outright racist comments about Russia with little smilies everytime there is any information that suggests Russia is going to get a kicking. If it did come to war, would you be there on the front line?

I want peace and stability however I don't think the rhetoric that is coming from both sides, especially from that ***** Milliband is conducive to either.

Russia has brought this upon itself, but you seem to understand and appease it every dangerous step of the way.
This wont come to war but if it would, yes i would be there. Its not something you choose in this country, that luxury is reserved for you.

[XabbaRus]

Hogwash...This hasn't been brought about by Russia all by itself.

I admit the Russian govt. has screwed up diplomatically and should have done its job and pulled back its troops into Southern Ossetia straight away. Put it didn't.

However all the handwringing in Europe and the US about Russia breaking international law, but paid no attention to the Russian government objections over Kosova which have been pointed out earlier in this thread is what annoys me. Taking everything that Sakashvilli says at face value.

As an editorial in the FT I read yesterday wrote "What is sauce for the Kosovo gander is also sauce for the Ossetian Goose". The FT being one of the few newspapers I consider to be objective in its reporting and analysis.

You really must be paranoid to think the Russia or its government wants to charge into former republics like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Either that or you think Medvedev and Putin are thick. Russia might like the Crimea back but to think they would risk a full blow war over it. Like Sky says Russia takes the long view. Ukraine has elections soon, Yushenko is unpopular and half of Ukraine is ethnic Russian.

Skybird has made good points here and fairly analysed them and dissected them. All you seem to be able to do is just regurgitate the same speil that is deep rooted in your dislike for Russia and Russians. Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator. Have you been to Russia recently? I have and hey I didn't see any sign of a dictatorship, didn't see anyone walking in fear or people afraid to talk about events or criticise the Kremlin. I'm sure you'll point out the Kremlin squashing certain newspapers and TV stations, but you think the Russians just get info by that. There are plenty of Russian publications available via the net and other sources, and I have not seen any move to have them shut down, no web filtering a la China.

[CptSimFreak]

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/28/abkhaz/

Abhazia's minister of international affairs says that they will not be part of Russia.

[Sea Demon]

Even if China was all for Russia's actions in Georgia, do you think she'll jeopardize her relationships with the West by publicly showing a huge vote of support, thus drawing all the spears towards her?

It doesn't look like Russia is going to get what they wanted from China. Before I went to bed last night, many news outlets were jumping the gun saying Medvedev is reporting such support from China. I've read everything from this meeting and it was tepid at best. And showed a more neutral stance for peace and security in the region. It was also very non-specific. But one thing is clear, it showed no actual support for Russia's position at all. Why? Because like I said before. If China begins to recognize break-away states in the Caucuses, that screws up their position with Taiwan, Tibet, etc.

And you make a good point here KS. This will bring unwanted hostilities to China if they were to misalign themselves by backing Russia here in totality. I don't think china's willing to do it for that reason as well.


Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator.

No.....Mr. Putin is no dictator. No...not at all. He's only set himself up to remain in power as Prime Minister and has moved to shift powers he once held as President, to the Prime Minister's office. But no, He's no dictator. And we just love how those people who seem to oppose Mr. Putin seem to be on the receiving end of a nice little poison pill. Yeah, Xabba....great guy.:roll:

On other fronts, Skybird has made no good points at all. He has positioned Russia in a advantageous role, where none exists for Russia here. Russia has stupidly made things come to pass for themselves that they desperately did not want. And there's more to come. They have over-estimated the support they would get from China, not being able to see the realities there. And yet they continue. If they're looking at the long term through their current actions, then Russia has very stupid leadership. They're digging themselves into a big hole, and yet getting nothing for it. Even today one of the so called break-aways have said they won't be a part of Russia. I don't think Russia is thinking at all.....they're posturing. And theyre not getting any positive results from it. They're simply making enemies and putting themselves into a position of total isolation.

[Skybird]

Hogwash...This hasn't been brought about by Russia all by itself.

I admit the Russian govt. has screwed up diplomatically and should have done its job and pulled back its troops into Southern Ossetia straight away. Put it didn't.

However all the handwringing in Europe and the US about Russia breaking international law, but paid no attention to the Russian government objections over Kosova which have been pointed out earlier in this thread is what annoys me. Taking everything that Sakashvilli says at face value.

As an editorial in the FT I read yesterday wrote "What is sauce for the Kosovo gander is also sauce for the Ossetian Goose". The FT being one of the few newspapers I consider to be objective in its reporting and analysis.

You really must be paranoid to think the Russia or its government wants to charge into former republics like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Either that or you think Medvedev and Putin are thick. Russia might like the Crimea back but to think they would risk a full blow war over it. Like Sky says Russia takes the long view. Ukraine has elections soon, Yushenko is unpopular and half of Ukraine is ethnic Russian.

Skybird has made good points here and fairly analysed them and dissected them. All you seem to be able to do is just regurgitate the same speil that is deep rooted in your dislike for Russia and Russians. Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator. Have you been to Russia recently? I have and hey I didn't see any sign of a dictatorship, didn't see anyone walking in fear or people afraid to talk about events or criticise the Kremlin. I'm sure you'll point out the Kremlin squashing certain newspapers and TV stations, but you think the Russians just get info by that. There are plenty of Russian publications available via the net and other sources, and I have not seen any move to have them shut down, no web filtering a la China.

Putin meanwhile has accused the US to have intended the outbreak of violence for purpose of helping one of the US candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586605.stm


there are several points that prevent this being wiped off the table too easily.

1. there is at least one case that could work as a precedent. during the Iran-hostage crisis, Republicans had established a secret deal with Iran to not free the hostages before the elections had been held and Reagun won against Carter. that way, Carter was prevented from taking advantage of the PR success of being the one politician who brought home america'S hostages. reagan was celebrated for having freed the hostages, while Carters months of work were minimised, and his role ridiculed. He got betrayed by the Republican party by use of dirty tricks that went at the cost of those american hostages who could have been freed much earlier.

2. Rice is reported to have send contradciting signals, saying she had warned Georgia's Uber-Trottel Saakashvilli of using force, but obviously the warnings fell on deaf ears - if internally such warnings ever were given for sure. It would not be the first time that a female diplomat sends contradicting signals to a foreign regime (remember Hussein 1990). If that was intentional, or not, we will never be allowed to know.

3. As a matter of fact, there have been and there are american troops present in Georgia, before the war there were 150 advisors and around 1000 combat troops joining in maneuvres with Georgian troops - who after the maneuver did not move back into their barracks, but immediately from the maneuver ground relocated to their attack positions from which they launched their assault just weeks later. Same was true for Russian troops conducting exercises at the same time - they too did not return home but relocated into psoitions from which they could reach the peacekeeopers in the province quickly. As the following chronic argues, there is no reason how anyone oin europe could have gooten surprised by the outbreak of war. That so many were surprised indeed shows the widespread dilletantism of today's spectacular and competent political leaders.
They SHOULD have seen it coming, really.


On July 15, an unprecedented show of military strength began on both sides of the main ridge of the Great Caucasus Range. In the south, not far from Tbilisi, close to 1,000 Americans joined the Fourth Infantry Brigade of the Georgian army in a maneuver called "Immediate Response 2008." (...) Following the military exercise on the Georgian side, President Saakashvili -- directly under the noses of the American military advisors -- sent parts of his army toward South Ossetia instead of ordering them to return to their barracks. The artillery brigade, for example, which would begin firing on the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali eight days later, on Aug. 7, is normally divided between two towns, Senaki and Gori. But after July 30, the brigade was concentrated in Gori.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-574812,00.html




4. Fact is that Washington wants to advance into Russia's Caucasean backyard at all cost, no matter how, to create a breach from where to bring even more pressure onto Russian interests and options, to cover geostrategic interests and pipelines in the region, and pushing the Russians even more against the wall by making NATO standing at their borders in the Caucasean region as well. Saakashvilli for this is just a tool. America claims worldwide validity of American ideas - and this brutal arrogance is the real problem here, and is the real motor behind NATO's aggressive expansionism.

In this conflict, america is as much concerned about democracy and freedom for Georgia, as is Russia really interested in the fate of the South Ossetians. Both these reasons given are just salvos in the propaganda war. That'S why the US is lining up with such a hysteric idiot like Saakashvilli who is everything but a democratic or competent ruler, and that is why the Kremlin so stubbornly defends it's stand in the region against American demands to claim it for the West, which means nothing else than: for American influence. "Democracy", and "independence for supressed Ossetians" in the end have nothing to do with both nation's true interests. Only hopeless idealists and determined nationalists, who uncritically embrace everything their countries say and do, can seriously believe these popular fairy-tales.

Intelligence operations - their major duty is not to guard against the enemy, but to deceive the own public, and hindering it to know what it should not know, without letting the public ever realise that it got manipulated into believing what it should believe.

[Happy Times]

Hogwash...This hasn't been brought about by Russia all by itself.

I admit the Russian govt. has screwed up diplomatically and should have done its job and pulled back its troops into Southern Ossetia straight away. Put it didn't.

However all the handwringing in Europe and the US about Russia breaking international law, but paid no attention to the Russian government objections over Kosova which have been pointed out earlier in this thread is what annoys me. Taking everything that Sakashvilli says at face value.

This thing has been cooking a little longer than the invasion of Georgia. Last year were the riots and attacks against Estonia etc.. FSBs agents have been busy bees for a long time.

You really must be paranoid to think the Russia or its government wants to charge into former republics like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Either that or you think Medvedev and Putin are thick. Russia might like the Crimea back but to think they would risk a full blow war over it. Like Sky says Russia takes the long view. Ukraine has elections soon, Yushenko is unpopular and half of Ukraine is ethnic Russian.

They are thick, thats evident allready. They have now shown that when FSB cant deliver, the Army goes in. Yet they failed with that also, as Shakavili is still in power, im sure Vladimir is biting his nails.

Skybird has made good points here and fairly analysed them and dissected them.

Skybird is very intelligent and i respect him, but that doesnt meen he couldnt be partially or totally wrong. In an earlier thread he explained his vision of the future.

"Currently, russian investements are buying off Western corporation shares like crazy, with incredible sums of money. Only the Gulf states and china surpass them. They seem to follow the same tactic like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia: biting off a big enough share of western industry to have a word in its control and in the future, when they run thin on oil and gas (we are talking 20, 30 years btw), they will shave off the cream from industrial profits they make with ex-western companies that are not so exclusively western-owned, then. Then WE will work for THEM, and for the Arabs. Serves us right, stupidly bragging as we do."

"So let's see who will grin wider in the end. I don't bet my money on the West. We need them more than they need us - and that is a bad start to begin a match with."

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141010&page=2

This is something i am positive will never happen. EU and US will not let it happen and contrary to Skys belief, they dont have to. So we disagree, not much to argue after that is established.


All you seem to be able to do is just regurgitate the same speil that is deep rooted in your dislike for Russia and Russians

And accusing me of racism and fasicm is getting old, i am neither and i hope people start to back these claims up with proof.



Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator. Have you been to Russia recently? I have and hey I didn't see any sign of a dictatorship, didn't see anyone walking in fear or people afraid to talk about events or criticise the Kremlin. I'm sure you'll point out the Kremlin squashing certain newspapers and TV stations, but you think the Russians just get info by that. There are plenty of Russian publications available via the net and other sources, and I have not seen any move to have them shut down, no web filtering a la China.

Ive never heard that Third Reich was a bad place for Nazis either.
In a modern world its hard to have exatcly the same kind of dictatorship as you had in the 40s. Critisising Kremlin privatly isnt a threat to them, but im sure it will stop many careers and opportunities. A threat it becomes when one tries to get this message out through politics or dissidency. Political rights and civil liberties are almost gone in Russia and the trend isnt up. You must know that the free media you claim is plenty, doesnt reach practically anyone in Russia, hence it isnt a threat.

[Happy Times]

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?:o

[Skybird]

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?:o
There have been many scandals in america'S political games, but the more serious and dirty tricks have been played by Republicans. The Iran hostage story. Watergate. Oliver North and the Contras. Iraq.

There is nothing I do not think they are capable of. Politics is a dirty business, cynism and lies are considered to be good tone. The glorious speeches are just for the crowd. Never trust them.

Panem et circensis.

Regarding Putin'S accusation - as I said, if he is right, then we will not be allowed to know. And if he is wrong, we will not know either. He has interferred with the US elections before in 2004, claiming he had evidence for Irqi nukes. that way he helped Bush being elected.

[August]

Skybird will happly write bald faced lies and pure propaganda if it supports his normal anti American argument. Take this business about a GoP deal with Iran in 1979 for instance. Nothing but unproven allegations yet he acts as though it were somehow an established fact. :roll:

[Sea Demon]

Skybird will happly write bald faced lies and pure propaganda if it supports his normal anti American argument. Take this business about a GoP deal with Iran in 1979 for instance. Nothing but unproven allegations yet he acts as though it were somehow an established fact. :roll:

Yup. Same thing with Chinese support of Russia. Just say it, and supposedly that makes it true. :roll:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Skybird is very intelligent and i respect him, but that doesnt meen he couldnt be partially or totally wrong. In an earlier thread he explained his vision of the future.

I'll agree he can be wrong, and he does sometimes seem to over-reach himself - China in the SOC and this one about the Iranians are fine examples.

However, I'll still grade him one up over the chest-beaters led by SD. If instead of "we have superior economic power", he says "we have superior military power" (which is true, especialy if you count the US), the sheer primitiveness of his basic thrust will be apparent to all. But really it is fundamentally the same thing.

They call that V-whatever guy who's now President of Russia warmongering, but how can he beat some of the members of our wonder group!

SD and Skybird can fight all day about whether Russia (the holder of the primary industry) or Europe (who holds the secondary and tertiary) can hurt each other more if it came down to it. Both sides might be able to partially reroute if it came down to a fight. But that isn't the point. The point is, both can put a good deal of hurt into the other side, as SD acknowledges in another thread. Again, if SD and Skybird were discussing who can hurt the other more if a nuclear war or conventional military conflict occurred, we'll see the primitiveness of going down that road.

Further, Skybird actually at least tries to understand the relative willpower (of acceptable "hurt") the two sides are willing to put in over this issue. And I think it is beyond argument that Georgia is a h*ll of a lot more important to Russia than NATO. If there is one side that might be willing to throw all to the winds, it'll likely be Russia (we are talking their national security vs "just another country for the bag"), so why does SD think it'll be Russia that backs off first?

Given that Georgia or even the Ukraine, ultimately, is not too important to NATO, realpolitik, which is what Skybird advocates (rather than "pro-Russian" propaganda), virtually mandates that West's response be very limited. Roaring and condemnation, of course, they'll do and they are executing. But real action? Military's out, that seems set. Sanctions? For all the roaring, the closest thing that came out of the smoke seems to be the Visa thing, which frankly, as far as sanctions go, sounds like a wrist slap, and even that's only being considered.

When Iraq hit Kuwait in 1990, UN Resolution 660 was passed w/i hours of the invasion, and within days they passed 661, and almost as fast Desert Shield began.

Now, it is something like three weeks since the fighting started, and we are still in the Noise phase. Looks like SB is going to get more of his prediction through after all. The West does not, in a realpolitik sense, want to find out who gets hurt worse in a economic fight. Thus, we see lots of noise and condemnations, and the slowest of actual motions.

If threats were reality, we'll probably be dead from all the nuclear threats made by now...

Finally, it is people like SB, who tries out other ways of tallying up the score, to place themselves in other people's shoes, that will understand other nations like Russia, be it to befriend her or to stop her more effectively, to pinch her where her leaders would agree it hurts.

As for the whole "push the other nations into NATO's bag" thing? Those nations were gone to begin with. Putin's only choices are a) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while smiling at Russia, b) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while frowning at Russia, and c) have them scared stiff of Russia enough they cease. (D: They stop being anti-Russia because they like Russia, had already been tried from 1990 onwards and proved to only turn into A). SD's perception is typical Westerner - even a small improvement in relationships is worth it even if decisions don't change much. Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

[Sea Demon]

Finally, it is people like SB, who tries out other ways of tallying up the score, to place themselves in other people's shoes, that will understand other nations like Russia, be it to befriend her or to stop her more effectively, to pinch her where her leaders would agree it hurts.

As for the whole "push the other nations into NATO's bag" thing? Those nations were gone to begin with. Putin's only choices are a) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while smiling at Russia, b) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while frowning at Russia, and c) have them scared stiff of Russia enough they cease. (D: They stop being anti-Russia because they like Russia, had already been tried from 1990 onwards and proved to only turn into A). SD's perception is typical Westerner - even a small improvement in relationships is worth it even if decisions don't change much. Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

Spare me Kazuaki. This has nothing to do with somebody putting themselves in anybody's shoes here. The individual in question doesn't do that at all. It has been merely attempting to underscore true events here from a single point of view that doesn't exactly add up correctly to events that have occured. As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person. The West, in particular the USA can never do anything right. And are dependant fully on Russia for everything. Meanwhile Russia doesn't care about the things we offer as it's all worthless and meaningless. :D What a total joke, and completely lopsided horse pucky. Not that I mind this individual's point of view, but spare me the window dressing here. This individual is not an unbiased person who sees things fairly and from an open mind at all. It always goes in one single direction everytime. Thusly, I can't take your post above seriously regarding this matter.

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway. You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia? You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations. Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia? Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious? The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy. We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats. Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all. And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French, is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot), then I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. I can see how Russia has made all the things they didn't want actually come to fruition. What a mess Russia has made for itself. If you can't see it, that's fine with me.

[Sea Demon]

Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

One more thing. This kind of perception is actually a dangerous one for Russia. If this is how Russia truly perceives things, and I'm not convinced it is, then their leadership is truly out to lunch. You could never truly build a lasting friendship with a nation who thinks like this.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

One more thing. This kind of perception is actually a dangerous one for Russia. If this is how Russia truly perceives things, and I'm not convinced it is, then their leadership is truly out to lunch. You could never truly build a lasting friendship with a nation who thinks like this.

Frankly, you are taking too idealistic a view of politics. A is certainly useful, but only if there is at least some chance of turning it into the ideal state of D. Otherwise, in terms of consequences, it is not very different from B.
B, in turn is only very bad if it causes additional unfavorable actions that would otherwise not have been taken. For example, say America asks next to put an "anti-Iran" bomber wing in Poland...

If you believe that Poland would have refused if not for Georgia, then that's Russia's loss. If you believe it'll have happened either way, it's a draw. But if Poland decides to be wary of Russia and refuses, then to Russia, that's a much better result than if Poland smiles at Russia and agrees to the bomber wing, no?

But don't be too grim about this. For one thing, the West had a part to play in telling Russia that A doesn't get them very far. Skybird might start from Kosovo and 1999, but I think the lesson the West has been teaching Russia in that regard actually started in the Gorbachev era, with CFE and Intermediate-Forces Treaty.
For another thing, B leading to C does not mean the close-off of D. D is the ideal result to both realists and idealists. If anything, if Russia actually gets to C, then D will become their natural goal as per realpolitik, and that might well bring a happier ending to all.

B->C->D is a perfectly plausible policy. It takes skill to play well, but Germany and Japan are actually examples of BCD, and if Iraq works out, it'll be BCD as well. Admittedly Russkies are not historically great at BCD, but if they are shooting for D, well, that attempt is already good, no?

[Sea Demon]

Frankly, you are taking too idealistic a view of politics. A is certainly useful, but only if there is at least some chance of turning it into the ideal state of D. Otherwise, in terms of consequences, it is not very different from B.
B, in turn is only very bad if it causes additional unfavorable actions that would otherwise not have been taken. For example, say America asks next to put an "anti-Iran" bomber wing in Poland...

Strategic bombers are offensive strategic weapons, right? We're putting defensive systems on an independant nation's soil, that has agreed to host it. It truly is nothing Russia has any say in at all. Other than of course their empty threats. In terms of the consquences you speak of, it did cause negative consequences to occur that otherwise would not have occured for Russia. So yes. Indeed Russia screwed the pooch by thinking this way.

B->C->D is a perfectly plausible policy. It takes skill to play well, but Germany and Japan are actually examples of BCD, and if Iraq works out, it'll be BCD as well. Admittedly Russkies are not historically great at BCD, but if they are shooting for D, well, that attempt is already good, no?

OK. I see what you mean here. And I agree to an extent. It simply will not be to the same extent that has played out in those situations IMO. The way it's being applied here, with the circumstances that have occured, It's not exaclty the same scenarios being played out. But I will admit, your argument is very compelling. I will need to think about that further.

And in the interests of fairness, I do wish we would ask Russia for direct talks to address some of their concerns. Or Russia would calm the hell down, and request the same of us instead of their stupid rhetoric. In other words go back to where we were before. We were addressing their concerns, but they didn't respect our answers, nor have they shown respect for their neighbor's sovereignty and national interests. If Russia got their troops out of Georgia, and the USA agreed to state to state talks to seriously address Russia's concerns, this whole thing could be rectified. In the same vein, Russia needs to understand as well, that they cannot dictate to the USA, and other sovereign Eastern European nations whom they can form friendships or alliances with. Or what security agreements we come to mutually. If they come to work from that view...and accept that they do not rule the countries they border anymore, they might actually get somewhere. Otherwise they'll continue down this path and stand to lose more.

[Happy Times]

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?:o
There have been many scandals in america'S political games, but the more serious and dirty tricks have been played by Republicans. The Iran hostage story. Watergate. Oliver North and the Contras. Iraq.

There is nothing I do not think they are capable of. Politics is a dirty business, cynism and lies are considered to be good tone. The glorious speeches are just for the crowd. Never trust them.

Panem et circensis.

Regarding Putin'S accusation - as I said, if he is right, then we will not be allowed to know. And if he is wrong, we will not know either. He has interferred with the US elections before in 2004, claiming he had evidence for Irqi nukes. that way he helped Bush being elected.

I dont see how this would help McCain, and this crisis isnt strengthening US position in the world but the opposite. These would have to be some rogue elements working on their own. Im aware "black ops" can happen in this world but i think you are really reaching here. This goes in the same X-file as 9/11 was a inside job and the rest.
Tough im sure many here believe in that also, mostly the same people that accuse me of fasicm.

[Skybird]

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.



And now again, given for the third time, for the rest of the crowd:

The last Ossetia-threads somewhat derailed into emotional venting, and even straight propaganda and nationalism. If you want to continue with that attitude, go back there - but don't start again here. Of yourse you can disagree with my views, but if you make that known, do it in a neutral way, like I post neutrally as well.


Since I initiated this thread, I somewhat share responsibility for it, so when you have 1.) a personal anger for with me and 2.) are not one of the three persons who made it to my ignore list so far, then vent in PMs and send them to me, and stop posting lies and slanderings about me in public. If this personal targetting of slanderings continue, against me or against anybody else, I'll ask the mod hereby to lock it immediately and without further warning.

It is sad that often a few bullies only are enough to ruin a thread for al others.

[Skybird]

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?:o
There have been many scandals in america'S political games, but the more serious and dirty tricks have been played by Republicans. The Iran hostage story. Watergate. Oliver North and the Contras. Iraq.

There is nothing I do not think they are capable of. Politics is a dirty business, cynism and lies are considered to be good tone. The glorious speeches are just for the crowd. Never trust them.

Panem et circensis.

Regarding Putin'S accusation - as I said, if he is right, then we will not be allowed to know. And if he is wrong, we will not know either. He has interferred with the US elections before in 2004, claiming he had evidence for Irqi nukes. that way he helped Bush being elected.

I dont see how this would help McCain, and this crisis isnt strengthening US position in the world but the opposite. These would have to be some rogue elements working on their own. Im aware "black ops" can happen in this world but i think you are really reaching here. This goes in the same X-file as 9/11 was a inside job and the rest.
Tough im sure many here believe in that also, mostly the same people that accuse me of fasicm.
McCain propagates tough US stands in a word full of rogues and evils, also american dominance and leadership, also McCain is a cold warrior and KGB-hater. Ossetia'S war shows two things in his support: if Russia takes and keeps it, it shows that McCain is right in his assessement on that russia still is the big enemy and the cold war in pricniple never ended amnd that it needs a man like McCain to protect innocent american citizens from the evils of the world. And in the unlikely case that Ossetia repels the attack, it shows that america'S alliance (with a thug not any more democratic than Putin himself) has helped to see thrpough american ideals and shining world order in an act of friendshipo that demanded a tough stand like McCain is claiming it for himself and denies that Osama'S foreign policy would be able to acchieve - because isn'T Obama just a soft bla-bla-talker who is willing to even negotiate with Iran on same eye level...? Hu - danger there, beware the black man :lol: ! And who do you think the industrial-military complex prefers to have in office Obama, pr Mccain? and they have gotten dirty hands in politics before.

[Happy Times]

And who do you think the industrial-military complex prefers to have in office Obama, pr Mccain?

Im sure some industry would like McCain and some Obama, theres some money to be made with Obamas policies. And many in the military support Obamas and Bidens wiews in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
Both candidates have also taken a tough line against Georgia invasion.
Im sure there are powerfull lobbies in US but the things they are blamed for go from killing JFK to 9/11. I just think these kind of accusations should come with even a shread of proof.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person.
Considering that the only thought that seemed to came to Skybird's head when asked why the Russians are not re-arming as fast as one may expect from defense expenditures is "Corruption" (not denying its existence; never mind that it isn't such a big budget, and never mind such obvious concerns as the Russians being so below-standard from years of deprivation in basics like training and housing (even by Russian/Soviet standards) that a lot of money would have to be spent on those before equipment, I won't call him pro-Russian, much less blindly in that direction.)

But then, Russophobia often seems so prevalent in the West that any argument that does not paint the Russians as completely black and doomed often looks like propaganda...

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway.
They do? You see, here's one of the reasons why I'm favoring SB. At least if the Russians use his thoughts, they might indeed logically proceed with their current COAs, so theory satisfies observation. You basically have to write off all their actions as "wrong", "stupid", or "miscalculated" when they don't fit your ideas of logic, which is actually an acknowledgment of theory failure and abandonment of further thought, and an invitation for an enemy to just maneuver around your brain blocks and get to what he wants.

Imagine that in front of a Russian Army are two paths to a goal. One looks muddy and the other looks clear. The Russians start advancing through the muddy path. You will assume they will have to reverse at some point and prepare your defenses along the clear path. Skybird will work out why they might choose the muddy path and redeploy accordingly (most importantly, he accepts they might actually be serious about choosing the mud path). Who's more likely to stop the enemy is obvious...

You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia?
Wait. You are getting ahead of yourself here.

I mean, a Westerner no doubt feels that NATO was a friend to Russia. From Russia's POV, the only way their actions could have been more hostile is if they started launching cruise missiles (given the West's reluctance to engage with ground troops without a uber-thorough air offensive...)

You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations.
Wait, are you saying if NATO refuses their requests to join, NATO does not treat them like sovereign nations?

Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia?
1) From a Correlation of Forces point of view, addition of additional countries to NATO, which can hardly be called a "pro-Russian" alliance on its most friendly day, worsens the Correlation of Forces, and thus is a threat.
2) It is no secret that many of the nations joining bear little love for Russia.

So, it is a worsening of the strategic situation and an increase of the threat, in at least two axes. Let's at least acknowledge this.

Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious?
Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

Now here's another piece of food for thought. From an independence point of view, alliances are good for a few nations of relatively equal strength, standing in front of a large neighbor or another alliance.

Theoretically speaking, a small state placed between two larger powers (read: Poland, Balts ...) tends to retain its freedom of movement (I define this here by the ability to take at least some actions that displease either / both powers) best by staying relatively neutral and playing the two sides off each other. Or by allying with other small states along the same border to become a third bloc.

A small power that allies with one of the large sides becomes in effect a protectorate of the large nations in said alliance. As they are convinced to take actions supporting their new alliance (read: NMD), they inevitably piss off the other side. Eventually, they may piss off the other side so much they have no choice but to be a protectorate. It doesn't show up much as long as small power is lined up with big power. But what sovereignty it is if you can only take actions approved by big nation - I'm sure you agree with this sentiment.

Just try a small disagreement, one that does extremely little, if anything, to the interests of big nation... Take poor New Zealand, 1980s. They decided democratically that they would no longer allow ships which are not declared nuke-free (something America consistently refuses to do for nebulous reasons - surely, declaring one vessel out of about 600 to not have nuclear weapons is not going to significantly improve the Soviet chances of concentrating on the nuke-equipped vessels...). One might say that it is not too rational, but it is nevertheless the will of the people. Democracies are supposed to follow that, no?

How does the US react? By respecting the right of the sovereign people of New Zealand to decide such things? Well, they did - they didn't quite try "Canberra Spring". But they just expressed their displeasure, and basically kicked NZ out of the alliance system. NZ, of course, was far away from the Soviet Union (and the Soviet threat was beginning to fade by then) and thus could survive this. Poland won't, especially after they pissed Russia off.

Or how about the "Coalition of the Willing". It is well known that many of the "willing" in fact had populations that weren't so "willing". Democratically speaking, those countries shouldn't have sent troops. But you know, they have alliances with the US ... so... We used to call this action of Big State gathering up troops from Little States a name - Feudalism.

Whatever the other pros and cons, how this whole process makes them more sovereign is difficult to note.

The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy.
Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

Husband grumbles his displeasure. The wives claim they don't understand why, as does the new husband.

Further, I again repeat, As a state, Russia cannot allow things detrimental to its interests just because of past wrongs. No State can.

We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats.
ROFTLMAO! This from a man who lives in the country with the Greatest "Power Projection" capability on the planet (read: the greatest capability, built at enormous expense, to threaten or even actively punish other nations with military force).

If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil. However, apparently, this pissed off the Americans with their "Monroe Doctrine"... and we know what happened - Bay of Pigs, followed by CMC. After CMC, America continued to make it as difficult as possible for Cuba to live on. This continues even after the Soviet Union died off...

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts, or that they have the right to make things as hard on Poland and the rest as possible in return for actions they are taking, while not actually threatening the sovereignty? That's what it means to be a sovereign nation. Your actions have consequences, and when you piss off people, they will punish you (all tempered by realpolitik, of course, which is why I think Russia will get off light for Georgia).

Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all.
Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening to directly front your border or refusing to relax CFE limitations on Russian military movements within its own territory even though the cause of all those "flank limits" and even CFE itself in the first place are just about gone...

And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.
"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French,
Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),
Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other. Thus, while the likelihood is no doubt increased, the most likely result, according to [i]realpolitik/i], is next to nothing, at least on this score. No doubt Russia has already factored this in.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot),
At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.

[Skybird]

Nice reasoning, Kazuaki, a shame that you do not often become so detailed in describing your thinking! Becasue of that I may have underestimated you a bit, and even felt provoked by some brief questions you asked without further comment. I offer my apology to you, therefore. I sorted you wrong.

And since we are at it, yes, all in all you described it correctly how my mind is ticking. The trap in that is that sometimes I use more ratio in my reasoning than reality is complying with - and then I am getting screwed by a more irrational reality, sometimes... :-?

[Happy Times]

Georgia War Shows 'Weak' Russia, U.S. Official Says

Russia's conflict with Georgia is the sign of a "weak" Russian nation, not a newly assertive one, and Moscow now has put its place in the world order at risk, the top U.S. diplomat for relations with the country said in an interview yesterday.

"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' But being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," said Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

"Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can't be both. And that's a choice Russia has to have," Fried said.

After Georgian forces moved into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia early this month, Russian troops attacked Georgian military installations and moved close to Georgia's capital before partially pulling back. This week, Moscow recognized the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a move the United States and European nations condemned as undermining Georgian sovereignty.

U.S. policymakers have debated whether and how Russia should be punished for its incursion into Georgia. Already, a civil nuclear deal between Russia and the United States appears dead in Congress, and Russia's 13-year effort to join the World Trade Organization is in trouble. Russian officials in recent weeks have disparaged such concerns -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this week said he sees "no advantages" to joining the WTO -- but U.S. officials predict Russia will suffer if it becomes isolated.

U.S. officials and their allies have begun to suggest that Russia cannot blame any fallout from the Georgia attack on U.S. actions.

"They are kind of giddy. They will need to sober up," said a senior U.S. official, insisting on anonymity because his remarks were diplomatically impolite. "When they sober up, they will see that it is not the U.S. that has done things to them; it's that they have done things to themselves."

Similarly, in a speech yesterday in Kiev, Ukraine, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "Today Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time, it will feel economic and political losses."

Miliband noted that Russia's foreign exchange reserves have fallen by $16 billion and risk premiums for investing in Russia have soared since the crisis began. By contrast, when the Soviet Union attacked Czechoslovakia in 1968, "no one asked what impact its actions had on the Russian stock market. There was no Russian stock market."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has advocated removing Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized democracies. Miliband dismissed that yesterday as a "knee-jerk" call for action, though some Russian political figures have also begun to question whether Russia needs to stay in the G-8.

Yesterday, in a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the other seven members -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy -- said they "condemn the action of our fellow G8 member" to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, adding that "Russia's decision has called into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus."

Vice President Cheney, speaking to an American Legion convention in Phoenix yesterday, condemned Russia's "unjustifiable assault" on Georgia. "The Georgian people won their freedom after years of tyranny, and they can count on the friendship of the United States," he said.

"Three American presidents -- Bush, Clinton and Bush -- have all in their own way sought to encourage Russia's integration with the wider world. This is a good thing. It was the right set of policies," Fried said. "Russia has now put all of that at risk, because Russian cannot simultaneously behave like the Soviet Union toward its neighbors like this is 1968 and act as if it is 2008 when it comes to the WTO."

Fried said the administration is determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus. He added: "There are areas where we have common interest with Russia and we want to work with them. The question is whether Russia has an ability to work with us."

In the interview, Fried did not excuse Georgia's initial actions, saying U.S. officials told Georgian officials they could not win a war with Russia. "Georgia is a flawed democracy, a democracy in construction. You don't help them by whitewashing their problems or defending a bad decision. But you don't want it crushed," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082703192.html

[Sea Demon]

Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

No. But if Russia is trying to coerce them from joining NATO by use of force, then yes, Russia is trying to posture itself as slave master. That's simply not going to work anymore.


Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

I'm not going to readdress everyother comment, as I think I already sufficiently did above. So I'll only address these few comments we haven't covered and then just agree to disagree with you on most major points. Kazuaki, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on almost everything you have presented. On this example, you share Russia's almost perverse, and deeply ingrained paranoia. Do you have any proof that NATO intends to strike Russia? Where do you get that the USA and NATO has it in for Russia. That is paranoia, and paranoia only. Russia needs to get over it. Like it or not, these soveraign nations have the right to seek out new relations with whomever they want. Russia and their self glorification be damned. They owe Russia nothing my friend. Nor can Russia dictate whom other sovereign nations have relations with. This is almost perverse how you think about this. Sorry but we'll just have to disagree.


If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

OK. They can make whatever choices and voice whatever displeasure they wish. But they will pay a price. It's a guarantee.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil.

Because those were offensive thermonuclear missile systems? Right? The Russians did base radar and SAM sites on Cuba throughout the Cold War, and we didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts,

Perhaps Russia is only afraid that they won't be able to bully these people anymore. Have you ever thought of that. It's clear that they think these "lesser" states should serve Moscow. And they don't wish to.

Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening

More paranoia and blank accusations. Actually it's simply security agreements between sovereign nations who have the right to make such agreements. And Russia's current posturing makes these nations feel it is now more important than ever. See how that works? This is why I say Russia is stupid here. NATO observer is actually something substantive that Russia will no longer get due to their own paranoia. I know that you think it's meaningless, and a worthless gesture, but we will have to disagree on this point.



"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Nope there was plenty of meat coming Russia's way. Especially in the top economic groups through nominal trade agreements. Of course I'm sure to you it's all meaningless and worthless gestures. So basically I can't help you see just how much Russia has lost and is losing by proceeding forward like a paranoid crazy man who can't accept his divorce and now stalks his ex like a looney.

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

I don't think it's worth making an enemy out of NATO, and the world's major economic blocs. That fractional chance will cost them more than they gain long term. Not only that, but with this fractional chance will make them enemies in the eyes of these former client states. These nations want to be part of the West anyway. Russia cannot change that attitude. But Russia's stupidity has slammed the door on their own faces.

Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

Not cleverly. Stubbornly. They will stay in Georgia for as long as they wish. But every day will cost them and will only further anger others. They will not get anything significnant for their troubles either.

Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other.

Yes. Which is why I hope it ends. Russia will come out to lose much more. We simply see it as unnecessary as it will lead to further hostilities between both sides. Not something beneficial to us either.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

If they're going to get in the mud...they risk getting dirty. I'm not saying we will stop food shipments like grain, poultry, beef, and many more items. But we could. The "humanitarians" you speak of wouldn't be able to stop anything. But I just wanted to bring up that they do indeed rely on us for something of great value to them. I know one other person here can't bring his little soul to accept that. But I digress here.

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

This is where you keep coming up short and confused. NATO didn't grab anything back then because there was nothing to grab. But these nations are now sovereign nations. NATO is grabbing nothing still. NATO membership is up to the candidate nation. NATO is not forcing anybody join it. And these nations have a right to join it if they choose and feel it is in their own national interests. Russia cannot dictate this. Yes, Russia has pushed these nations away from it and has made it a whole lot worse for themselves now. They'll never get the love of these nations, and at this point I fail to see how they can get any respect at all from them. It's been all due to obsolete paranoia of days past. They truly need to get over it Kazuaki.

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.

I remember that. And they got nothing for that as well. Their "say" didn't have any impact. I will give Russia one thing..they truly know how to waste their time and make enemies in the process. Their version of realpolitik is ineffective.

[heartc]

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.
And I'm with Sea Demon, you arrogant individual.

You think that with your pseudo-intellectual babble, and your pretentiously "neutral" approaches, you can fool the people here. Well, actually, for the most part you indeed can. For the most part, the people fall for it. Because you are good at it. You are good in fooling people to listen to your bull****, while you pretend some kind of neutrality. You abuse the willingness of the people - better men than you are - to grant others and you the benefit of the doubt, in order to abuse this admirable virtue of them to promote your propaganda BS.
You are a despicable individual.

And if there is one thing I truly hate about America, it's that you guys are too naive, too often, and for too long. You assume others would act like you do. Wrong.
Most of you don't like pretentious thugs. But you always give them the benefit of the doubt. Because you are a free people. This is admirable, but sometimes, with your good willingness, you buy into too much bull**** of others. Some people are very good in hiding their despicable agendas by putting them into pseudo intellectual and pseudo superior / neutral ways of expression. And you fall for it because you think they are honest brokers.

Well, consider the option that they aren't.

-->That they aren't.<--

[Thomen]

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.

And if there is one thing I truly hate about America, it's that you guys are too naive, too often, and for too long. You assume others would act like you do. Wrong.
Most of you don't like pretentious thugs. But you always give them the benefit of the doubt. Because you are a free people. This is admirable, but sometimes, with your good willingness, you buy into too much bull**** of others. Some people are very good in hiding their despicable agendas by putting them into pseudo intellectual and pseudo superior / neutral ways of expression. And you fall for it because you think they are honest brokers.

Well, consider the option that they aren't.

-->That they aren't.<--
Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.

[Skybird]

I even never had spoken a single word with heartc. In fact I even did not ever really noticed he is around.

Great appearance, heartc. You really set new standards, I'm impressed. You certainly showed what you are made off.

[heartc]

Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.
I know he is.

That's why I made second a section. The second part was directed towards those who waste their time in ultimately pointless hopes of coming to some kind of mutual understanding with him - well, at least those he did not yet put on his "ignore list" because they meant too much trouble by presenting a different and steadfast opinion to this self-proclaimed philosopher.

[AntEater]

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

[Thomen]

Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.
I know he is.

That's why I made second a section. The second part was directed towards those who waste their time in ultimately pointless hopes of coming to some kind of mutual understanding with him - well, at least those he did not yet put on his "ignore list" because they meant too much trouble by presenting a different and steadfast opinion to this self-proclaimed philosopher.

Ah, ok. The 'swing' in the post confused me. =)

[heartc]

I even never had spoken a single word with heartc. In fact I even did not ever really noticed he is around.

Great appearance, heartc. You really set new standards, I'm impressed. You certainly showed what you are made off.

Oh, you did, but never mind. I, on the other hand, have seen you a thousand times by turning on the TV set here or opening the Spiegel magazine.
You are the kind who blaims America for Fox News but you yourself are so deep into home made BS that you dont even realize it anymore.
No, wait - wrong. You do realize it, but happily put more fuel into the fire, because you are one of those who eat from it.

[Skybird]

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

Maybe that is why I started to overlook him sometime ago. I am not angry when people do not disagree with me. for exampe there is HappyTimes, who also disagrees with me on most things, but neither am I angry at him, nor does he personally attack me and tell lies about me. And with others it is sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing as well - no problem, it's okay. just when somebody like SD or heartc or August think they must push their "argument" by insulting me, accusing me of lies, putting things in my mouth and quote me out of conctext to distorrt what I said and get a score for them over that fake quote, and agendas they claim I have but in fact have not, and I see myself being subject of slandering - then I am getting a bit intolerant to these people in return, yes. In earlier years I would have posted endlessly in return, and we remember the useless flame wars that came from that in the wake of the Iraq war. Today I put such fabulous debators on the list, and make my life easier and free from personal insults, and help to make the forum a little bit more peaceful by evading any future fights and friction with these figures that way.

It is not about censoring other opinions, or not wishing to deal with them. It is about not tolerating bad manner and unpolite behavior and personal diffamation, and refusing to waste time and energy with such superior gentlemen. I continue discussions currently with three board members, over three different threads, and all of them and me disagree, but nevertheless we keep it friendly and humorous and are on the way to become kind of pen-pals, in fact two of them are alteady that,m since two or three years - I doubt that I have deficits in being able to bear other opinions. Just the personal mud-throwing started by some people almost by reflex when "Skybird" has shown up - is becoming annoying at times. Skybirdophobia it is, i think. :)

A small gain for me, but a huge gain for forum peace on this board: :lol:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6901/image2jj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[heartc]

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

Ass licking. Yeah. Traitor, huh? I am not one of those Anti-American hippies in this country who are such Anti-American fools that they were and are not even willing to join the army of their own country and swear an oath to defend their own country, DEUTSCHLAND, but would put up the white flag as soon as the Russians would come.
(But I think you were not one of *those* fools, either.)
I'm ass-licking freedom, if you will. While some other people are too busy seeking blame in those who brought freedom back to us and seek the Nazis in e.g. today's Israel so they can feel better about their own history.

"Ass licker". Funny. In 1945, Goebbels said, in effect: "First they will hate us. But in a hundred years from now, they will honor us again." 37 years to go. And if I'm the ass-licker now, because I take offense in the outright Anti-American BS that the media and most political parties love to throw around here already now - and not just since Mr. Bush - he might still be right in the end.

But I'm the "ass-licker". You do not even consider a different opinion to be just that. A different opinion under freedom. No, it must be ass-licking. Go to hell.

[heartc]

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6901/image2jj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Too bad the ovens are gone, hugh, Skybird?

[August]

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.

Interesting concept. I'm supposed to be ashamed of a person who displays friendship to me because he's too much of a friend? I suppose that conversely i'm supposed to like people like Skybird because his arrogance and hatred keeps us on our toes? :roll:

[AntEater]

Yes
We're not a US colony, at least I don't feel like a colonial subject.
That said, when push comes to shove, we will be allies and fight together.
But until that day comes, I will reserve my right to criticize US policies, exactly for the reason that in contrary to lets say China, criticism will be heard and not ignored.
(Russia is something of a middle ground, not yet China but not the US)
As Heartc correctly assumed, I did serve.
I hope this day will never come, but if there were a war and I'd be called up again, I will fight.
Maybe there are some common values, but my first loyalty belongs to my country, not some nebulous alliance, not to some politicians on the payroll of Washinton thinktanks. If our interests converge, fine. They do in many points.
But I "Nibelungentreue" is nothing for me.

Re Skybird, I disagree with him on practically every second subject regarding german internal politics, and on almost every subject regarding the EU, but in regards to foreign policy, I mostly agree with him.
He definitely does neither have an evil agenda, nor does he hate the US. A real hater wouldn't waste his finger musculature on such long, elaborate posts. Anyone who tries to convince does not hate.

PS. Regarding the fighting part, I honestly recommend all NATO forces to clear the 180 deg arc in front of me, I can't hit the broad side of a barn.
On the other hand, I heard, with a G36, it doesn't matter how bad you suck at aiming, you will hit.

[August]

Yes
We're not a US colony, at least I don't feel like a colonial subject.
That said, when push comes to shove, we will be allies and fight together.
But until that day comes, I will reserve my right to criticize US policies, exactly for the reason that in contrary to lets say China, criticism will be heard and not ignored.
(Russia is something of a middle ground, not yet China but not the US)
As Heartc correctly assumed, I did serve.
I hope this day will never come, but if there were a war and I'd be called up again, I would fight.
Maybe there are some common values, but my first loyalty belongs to my country, not some nebulous alliance, not to some politicians on the payroll of Washinton thinktanks. If our interests converge, fine. They do in many points.
But I "Nibelungentreue" is nothing for me.

So who said you couldn't criticize? Not me, that's for sure. Criticize away. Just realize that if you make a habit of it like Skybird does we might start suspecting you aren't the friend you claim to be.

[heartc]

In the end, I have nothing against you, AntEater. But you are not Skybird, either.
You have your opinion and present it in an honest way and - while I might disagree with it or it might piss me off - that is fine. Unlike Skybird, who is a manipulative pretender. He arrogantly pretends neutrality and objectiveness, while in reality he has neither. These attributes don't even exist in his same universe. That alone wouldn't be a problem. I'm not neutral either (who is?). But I don't pretend to be. It is the show of his that I find repulsive.

[joegrundman]

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6901/image2jj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Too bad the ovens are gone, hugh, Skybird?

for heaven's sake heartc, get a grip man

[Sea Demon]

Off to my ignore-list you go...........

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6901/image2jj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Oh no! I'm on Skybird's Sh%tlist. :lol: Whatever will I do???? :roll: I don't know how I'll ever recover. :rotfl:

Skybird's sense of self importance is truly comical. Get over yourself Sky.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Frankly, if you represent the thoughts of NATO, we're better off not having that little meeting you proposed a post or two back. No point in leaving further foul tastes in everyone's mouths.
Do you have any proof that NATO intends to strike Russia? Where do you get that the USA and NATO has it in for Russia. That is paranoia, and paranoia only. Russia needs to get over it.
Tell me. How sincere did Soviet promises of peace look as they were building a new SS-20 missile site? Now, why do you expect the Russians to think differently of NATO.
It is about time Westerners re-remember that if you improve your correlation of forces while muttering things about peace, other people concentrate on your improved correlation of forces. I find it hypocritical of NATO to forget this when it is convenient to them.
Like it or not, these soveraign nations have the right to seek out new relations with whomever they want.
They are not dictating. They just specify the consequences.
OK. They can make whatever choices and voice whatever displeasure they wish. But they will pay a price. It's a guarantee.
At least you agree to their right to establish the consequences. Since the West has its own interests too, I won't deny them the right to set consequences too. But I bet that realpolitik dictates very little, at least this round.
Because those were offensive thermonuclear missile systems? Right?
1) It can be argued that under MAD, strategic thermonuclear missile systems are actually a very defensive weapon.
2) We were talking about sovereignty. If you are serious about sovereignty, then Cuba can place either an offensive or defensive system on their ground, no?
The Russians did base radar and SAM sites on Cuba throughout the Cold War, and we didn't seem to have a problem with that.
I'll admit they didn't quite try invasions after that, but "no problem" will explain all those economic sanctions...
Anyway, regarding even stereotypically defensive systems, the West has ruled many times that a defensive system can indeed be a threat to stability. There's the ABM Treaty of 1972. Or how about the whole Cyprus S-300 incident of the 90s - and that's b/w 2 members of NATO, so they are nominally friends! Or how about every time the US objects to S-300s or antitank missiles being exported to countries like Iran. I mean, sure, you get it that selling Backfire bombers may be bad, but SAMs - can there be a more defensive weapon than a SAM?
One has to remember that ultimately, weapons are political tools. They generate options for their wielders, including the option to interfere with other wielders' options, and the options produce political force.
Thus, in some ways, a defensive system add up to be as politically threatening as an offensive one if they interfere with his options. Even options he really won't have exercised, because the very existence of those options in itself creates force. When those options are lost or degraded, it is a loss to his position, and anyone can legitimately feel threatened by this.
Perhaps Russia is only afraid that they won't be able to bully these people anymore. Have you ever thought of that. It's clear that they think these "lesser" states should serve Moscow. And they don't wish to.
Tell me, when the US sails 2 CVBGs into the Taiwan Strait, is it "bullying" China? If China arms the coast with more 636s and Moskits, is America unhappy it is worried it won't be able to bully China as well anymore? When Iran buys SAMs, is American unhappy because it won't be able to bully it out of building nuclear weapons quite as efficiently?
Stripping the sentence of loaded language, the operative word is influence, with all its various degrees of coercion. And Russia, like any other country, wants to increase that, especially when target countries are performing unfavorable actions.
More paranoia and blank accusations.
Who gets to be the judge of what's "paranoia"?
Actually it's simply security agreements between sovereign nations who have the right to make such agreements.
No one denies them that. But they have to realize their actions do not please everything. And to expect that the person they displeased to just smile and say "Go ahead, Hurt my Interests" is unrealistic.
And Russia's current posturing makes these nations feel it is now more important than ever. See how that works? This is why I say Russia is stupid here.
Here's an alternative thought: Maybe I should stop provoking Russia, especially when (esp. for the Ukraine) I'm getting gas at a bargain price.
NATO observer is actually something substantive that Russia will no longer get due to their own paranoia. I know that you think it's meaningless, and a worthless gesture, but we will have to disagree on this point.
I think it is of symbolic value, but it simply can't compensate for real gestures.
If you don't like the example of NATO's expansion or Kosovo, then try this thought for size when you claim that NATO has been acting like a friend:
How many friendly nations insist, on the basis of an obsolete treaty made in a completely different environment (and that in itself was hardly a treaty you'll make with a "friend"), on restricting the movement of your troops inside your own territory?
Nope there was plenty of meat coming Russia's way. Especially in the top economic groups through nominal trade agreements. Of course I'm sure to you it's all meaningless and worthless gestures. So basically I can't help you see just how much Russia has lost and is losing by proceeding forward like a paranoid crazy man who can't accept his divorce and now stalks his ex like a looney.
But I thought we were discussing NATO. Regarding the economics, I don't think you have much to worry about.
I don't think it's worth making an enemy out of NATO, and the world's major economic blocs. That fractional chance will cost them more than they gain long term. Not only that, but with this fractional chance will make them enemies in the eyes of these former client states. These nations want to be part of the West anyway. Russia cannot change that attitude. But Russia's stupidity has slammed the door on their own faces.
Wow, first you say something that implies that they weren't enemies before Georgia, and then you say it is inevitable they take opposing actions? Hmm...
Yes. Which is why I hope it ends. Russia will come out to lose much more. We simply see it as unnecessary as it will lead to further hostilities between both sides. Not something beneficial to us either.
Don't worry. It'll end. As soon as both sides have put on a good show of chest beating for their audiences, realpolitik will most likely say "Wrist-Slap" or thereabouts.
If they're going to get in the mud...they risk getting dirty. I'm not saying we will stop food shipments like grain, poultry, beef, and many more items. But we could. The "humanitarians" you speak of wouldn't be able to stop anything. But I just wanted to bring up that they do indeed rely on us for something of great value to them. I know one other person here can't bring his little soul to accept that. But I digress here.
If there aren't enough humanitarians in the government and people of NATO nations to stop a plan involving the starvation of the Russian people, isn't that very good proof that NATO just has it in for Russia and Russians, and as an aside that the West is utterly hypocritical on its humanitarian stances?
This is where you keep coming up short and confused. NATO didn't grab anything back then because there was nothing to grab.
Are you saying that NATO is even more opportunistic than I thought?
They truly need to get over it Kazuaki.
Telling people to get over it is a sign that you are not going to put in the effort for understanding. Why does Russia think dialogue with the West is futile?
I remember that. And they got nothing for that as well. Their "say" didn't have any impact. I will give Russia one thing..they truly know how to waste their time and make enemies in the process. Their version of realpolitik is ineffective.
I find it incomprehensible that participation is called "zero" and observer is called "substantive" in your value system...

[Sea Demon]

You're running in circles Kazuaki, and definitely more desperate to get your message out than me. One can only wonder why. At this point, it ain't worth it. I'm done reading your responses. I strongly and completely disagree with you. I've already addressed everything sufficiently. I read this last one from you, and you are free to your opinions. Enjoy!

[JHuschke]

Russia has a right to defense, no actions are illegal because United States should NOT tell any country what it can or not do. U.S. needs to quit being so dominative and trying to control trade, economy, and movements of foreign countries. This isn't how the world works, or otherwise it would be a nuclear disaster or it may become one soon.

[Skybird]

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

This is an auto-bot-translation of a german editorial from die Zeit. It points at the same direction of what I said: that...

The Russians can afford to modernize their armed forces, maybe even to slightly increase them, and they can afford to produce more ICBMs than a US missile shield could protect against, and by that "flood" any such defense system. But they cannot afford to enter a new arms race and produce military goods at the frequency and quantitity they did during the USSR era. Thus, there eventually will be a cheap nuclear arms race, but no conventional one - just a constant modenrizing of Russian forces. ...

(...or the attempt to do so).

However, the article points at corruption and the immense internal resistance of the Russian generals against Putin'S reforms and raise in defense budget, that has prevented them from acchieveing what could have been acchieved if the money would have been spend for better use.

Russia's military spendings fell from 42.5 billion dollars in 1992 to 13.6 billion in 1997, and since then were raised by Putin to 35.4 billion on 2007 (source: Die Zeit, German original text)

This is an assessement of the dangers and risks in Moldawia, Transnistria and the Crimean.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-575238,00.html


In a guest article for the newspaper Nezavisimaya gazeta, Arbatov writes: "A certain group of people in Russia, in the political parties, mass media, government agencies and business community, has come to the conclusion that Ukraine and Georgia will undoubtedly join NATO. They may certainly join, but only after being reduced somewhat in size: Ukraine without the Crimea and the Donetsk Basin, and Georgia without Abkhazia and South Ossetia." According to Arbatov, the adherents to this line of thinking are already preparing for the virtual secession of the disputed territories.

Yesterday it was reported that Russia prepares to establish permanent military bases both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Abkhazia first announced that it will stay separate from Russia, one day later announced their wish to join Russia. Since it is hard to imagine how both regions will be able to survive as independent nations, a joining with russia sounds reasonable. Why not when after the last Georgian has left, the population - since a very very long time - more or less unisono tends to line up with Russia anyway. This sympathy is living since decades, if not centuries, and is not originated by the passport distribution by russia.

[Steel_Tomb]

Also, remember that although the Russian defense budget has increased, because of inflation the real term gain is substantially less!

Source: Janes http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdi/jdi080811_1_n.shtml

Also, if investors pull out of the market I think that we will see that Russia's economy will suffer quite a bit. I know they have reserves in place... but how long will that last??

[Zero Niner]

I wonder what Putin would say/do if Ingushetia decides to go the way of South Ossetia and the other province Abkhazia and declare independence?

Probably put them down ruthlessly, I suppose.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Maybe he has successfully deterred them.

At worst, if he suppresses them and the West squawks, he can put all the statements they are making into a tape recorder and Play it back in their faces...