Aparently not, Germanys orbit seems to be revolving around Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schedule an (another?) incident during the negotiation process, invade, and call it a fait accompli? Sure, they'll have to pay a price for this, but they may decide to do so if they feel like they are going to lose anyway, and I seriously doubt NATO would go to war for it.
And every other power has the right to try and stop them from pursuing policies that threaten themselves.
While NATO power is stronger than Russian, this is counterbalanced by the fact that, let's face it, Georgia is probably about 10x more important to Russia than it is to NATO.
And I notice you are thinking very little of what's right or what's appropriate, just "Might Makes Right". And 1-2 weeks ago we were complaining about Russia going Might makes Right on Georgia...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't we spectacular.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572329,00.html

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

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

1. Elation about the new situation.

2. Examination of the new situation.

3. Adaptation or rejection of the new situation.

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

5. An independent nation or puppet state.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572811,00.html


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

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...572691,00.html

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

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

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

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