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.

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.

This is correct.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

:rotfl:

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"

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.

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

Until the cossacks come and wipe you out.

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.

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/...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.